Policy and Planning Committee Agenda September 2015

Policy and Planning Committee

Thursday 3 September 2015 10.30am Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford

Agenda for the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council to be held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 3 September 2015 commencing at 10.30am.

Councillors N W Walker (Committee Chairperson) P D Horton B R Jeffares M P Joyce

D L Lean (ex officio)

Representatives Councillor R Vickers (Stratford District Council) Councillor R Jordan (New Plymouth District Council) Councillor P Nixon (South Taranaki District Council) Mr D H McIntyre (Federated Farmers Taranaki)

Attending Messrs M J Nield (Director-Corporate Services) G K Bedford (Director-Environment Quality) A D McLay (Director-Resource Management) S R Hall (Director-Operations) G C Severinsen (Policy and Strategy Manager) C L Spurdle (Planning Manager) P Ledingham (Communications Officer) S Tamarapa (Iwi Communications Officer) Mrs K van Gameren (Committee Administrator)

Apologies Councillor D N MacLeod (ex officio) Councillor C S Williamson

Notification of Late Items

Item 1 Confirmation of Minutes – 23 July 2015 Page 1

Item 2 Submission on NES for Plantation Forestry Page 8

Item 3 Bathing beach recreational water quality Page 22 SEM report 2014-2015

Item 4 Regional freshwater recreational bathing water Page 30 quality report for 2014-2015

Doc# 1561043-v1

Item 5 Nutrient mitigation options for the next generation Page 42 Freshwater Plan – background technical reports Four Separate Reports

Item 6 Freshwater bodies of outstanding or significant Page 70 value in the Taranaki region One Separate Report

Item 7 Report on Advocacy and Response activities Page 76 for the 2014/2015 year

Item 8 General Business

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Confirmation of Minutes – 23 July 2015

Item: 1

Approved by: A D McLay, Director-Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1561020

Resolve That the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. takes as read and confirms the minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 23 July 2015 at 10.30am 2. notes the recommendations therein were adopted by the Taranaki Regional Council on 11 August 2015. Matters arising Appendices Document #1544211 – Minutes Policy and Planning Committee Thursday 23 July 2015

Minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee Meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council, held in the Taranaki Regional Council Chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 23 July 2015 at 10.30 am.

Members Councillors P D Horton (Committee Chairperson) B R Jeffares M P Joyce

D L Lean (ex officio) D N MacLeod (ex officio)

Representatives Councillor P Nixon (South Taranaki District Council) Mr D McIntyre (Federated Farmers Taranaki)

Attending Messrs B G Chamberlain (Chief Executive) A D McLay (Director-Resource Management) G K Bedford (Director-Environment Quality) M J Nield (Director-Corporate Services) S R Hall (Director-Operations) G C Severinsen (Planning and Strategy Manager) C L Spurdle (Planning Manager) P Ledingham (Communications Officer) S Tamarapa (Iwi Communications Officer) Mrs K van Gameren (Committee Administrator) Mrs N West (Policy Analyst) Ms D Young (Policy Analyst)

Mr J Clough (Wrightson Consulting)

Apologies The apologies from Councillor N W Walker and Councillor C S Williamson, and Councillor R Vickers (Stratford District Council) were received and sustained.

Notification of Late Items There were no late items of general business.

1. Confirmation of Minutes – 11 June 2015

Resolved

THAT the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council

1. takes as read and confirms the minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee

Doc# 1544211-v1

meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council held in the Taranaki Regional Council Chambers, Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 11 June 2015 at 10.30 am

2. notes that the recommendations therein were adopted by the Taranaki Regional Council on 30 June 2015.

Horton/MacLeod

Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

2. Regional freshwater ecological quality: 2013-2014 results from state of the environment monitoring

2.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum and provided a presentation to the Committee on the latest results of the Council’s state of the environment monitoring programme for fresh water ecological health (macroinvertebrate monitoring).

2.2 The Committee noted that the Council’s state of the environment monitoring of Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) for the 2013-2014 period show an on- going firming of the trend of improvements regionally in respect of the Council’s Long-Term Plan target of maintaining or enhancing regional in—stream ecological health. In time, policies/initiatives such as complete stock exclusion from waterways, the maturing and extension of riparian planting and the continuing reductions in number and improvements in the quality of discharges to waterways will see further consequential gains.

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council

1. receives this memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of and trends in regional in-stream macroinvertebrate community health data for Taranaki, for 2013-2014 and over the period 1995-2014

2. notes the findings of the SEM programme 3. adopts the specific recommendations therein. Lean/Joyce

3. Reports by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on water quality

3.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum introducing two reports to the Committee from the Parliamentary Commissioner (PCE) for the Environment released in June 2015 dealing with water quality (Update

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 23 July 2015

report. Water Quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution and Managing water quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement).

3.2 The PCE’s reports and recommendations are for Government consideration as it develops its freshwater policy further. The Council has in the meantime, committed to a review of its Fresh Water and Soil plans in accordance with timetables prescribed in the Resource Management Act and the current operative NPS. As part of its plans for freshwater policy, the Government intends to commission an independent review of the implementation and effectiveness of the National Policy Statement by 1 July 2016. The Council will have the opportunity to formally incorporate its responses to Government initiated policy at that time, including further reflections upon the PCE’s analysis.

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum Reports by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on water quality. MacLeod/Jeffares

4. Update on the review of the Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki

4.1 Mr C L Spurdle, Planning Manager, spoke to the memorandum updating the Committee on the Council’s review of the Draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki (Draft Plan) and the feedback received on the Draft Plan to date.

4.2 The Council has received 42 responses (feedback) on the Draft Plan from interested parties and individuals. While feedback on the Draft Plan has been largely positive, significant changes sought to the Draft Plan from feedback received are broadly grouped around water quantity, National Objectives Framework limits, nutrient management, cultural significance, wetlands and biodiversity, and implementation.

4.3 Council staff will review the feedback and it is proposed to prepare a report summarizing the issues raised and the Council’s preliminary response. In due course that report will be presented to the Committee and will be made available to all respondents. The comments received will be used to inform final changes to the draft Plan prior to it being potentially publicly notified by the Council under Schedule 1 of the RMA. Meetings will be held with respondents as part of this process to discuss any issues or concerns raised in submissions prior to drafting a revised Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki. A review of the Council’s position on progressing the plan review will be made later in the year.

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 23 July 2015

1. receives the memorandum on the feedback received on the Draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki

2. notes that officers will be completing an officer’s report and meeting with respondents to discuss any issues or concerns raised in their feedback prior to drafting a revised Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki. Joyce/McIntyre

5. A National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry: Consultation document

5.1 Ms D Young, Policy Analyst, spoke to the memorandum on the release of a consultation document released by the Ministry of Primary Industries on a proposal to introduce a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry under the Resource Management Act 1991 and to seek feedback from the Committee for the preparation of a submission by 11 August 2015.

5.2 The Committee noted and discussed the memorandum and supported the officer comments outlined. It was agreed that a ‘one-size fits all approach’ is not desirable for Taranaki and the potential imposition of costs from increased mapping and to monitor permitted activities are of major concern. There is no ability in law to recover such monitoring costs which would have to be borne by rate-payers. The comments/discussion from the Committee will be incorporated into the Council’s submission on the consultation document.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum A National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry: Consultation document 2. notes that submissions on the consultation document close on 11 August 2015 3. notes that the Committee has discussed the proposals and provided feedback on matters to be raised in a submission. Jeffares/Lean

6. Guidance to ensure food safety and animal welfare from drilling oil and gas wells

6.1 Mr A D McLay, Director-Resource Management, spoke to the memorandum introducing a recently released report prepared by the Ministry for Primary Industries entitled Guidance to ensure food safety and animal welfare if spread rocks and minerals from drilling oil and gas wells on land.

6.2 The guidance document provides scientific assurance that there is no risk to food safety or animal welfare as a result of spreading rocks and minerals from drilling oil

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 23 July 2015

and gas wells on land other than potentially from hydrocarbons. The document emphasises the findings of Landcare Research work that the risk from hydrocarbons is extremely low, even immediately after spreading, and there is no risk to food safety or animal welfare if the land is not stocked or crops harvested until hydrocarbons have biodegraded to concentrations at or below the values outlined in the guidance document. The hydrocarbon concentration values given are the same as those currently used by the Council in its resource consents to note when the discharge consent can be surrendered. The role of district councils in controlling land use at land farm sites, through the national environmental standard for assessing and managing contaminants in soil, was noted. The recommendation of the PCE concerning regulating food safety at land farm sites has now been addressed and the recent positive media comments made by the Commissioner endorsing the report were noted.

6.3 Members noted the land improvements that can arise from land farming oil and gas wastes and the significant work undertaken by the Council, central government and Fonterra to regulate the activity and show there were minimal to no food safety and environmental risks looking at the past and into the future. Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum Guidance to ensure food safety and animal welfare from drilling oil and gas wells 2. notes that the guidance document concludes that there is no risk to food safety or animal health as a result of spreading rocks and minerals from oil and gas drilling onto land, other than potentially from hydrocarbons 3. notes further that the risks from hydrocarbons is extremely low and if carried out to values specified in the document (which are currently used by the Council in its resource consents), there is no risk to food safety or animal welfare from the spreading of rocks and minerals from drilling oil and gas wells on land. Joyce/MacLeod

7. District Council Hazardous Substances Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Profile Technical Report

7.1 Mr A D McLay, Director-Resource Management, spoke to the memorandum presenting for Members’ information the Hazardous Substances Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Profile technical report. The ongoing collaboration between district and regional councils in regulating the industry was noted and the proposed oil and gas web portal introduced.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum Hazardous Substances Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry Profile technical report

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 23 July 2015

2. notes that the report will inform and assist in the development of clearer rules and consent processes for oil and gas operations within Taranaki, including the creation of a single region-wide approach to consent applications. MacLeod/Joyce

8. Draft Regional landscape study of the Taranaki coastal environment

8.1 Mrs N West, Policy Analyst, spoke to the memorandum and provided a presentation on the Draft Regional Landscape Study of the Taranaki Coastal Environment which is part of a review of areas of high and outstanding natural character and outstanding natural features and landscapes within the Taranaki coastal environment that will be used to inform a review of the Council’s Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum and report titled Draft Regional Landscape Study of the Taranaki Coastal Environment 2. agrees to the draft report being release for targeted consultation and input from interested parties to assist in the identification of coastal areas of outstanding value; 3. notes that a final version of the draft report will be presented to this Committee following consultation and incorporation of any feedback 4. notes that the findings and recommendations of this report will be used to inform the review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki. Lean/Joyce

9. General Business

There were no items of general business.

There being no further business, the Committee Chairperson Councillor P D Horton, declared the Policy and Planning Committee meeting closed at 11.55 am.

Confirmed

Committee Chairperson: ______N W Walker

Date: 3 September 2015

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 23 July 2015

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Submission on NES for Plantation Forestry

Item: 2

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1559534

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce a submission made on the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry and to seek Council endorsement of the submission.

A copy of the submission is attached to this memorandum. Submissions closed on 11 August 2015.

Executive summary The Ministry for Primary Industries has released a consultation document seeking feedback on a proposal to develop a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry NES- PF). Members received an item on the NES-PF and discussed the broad content of the submission at the last meeting of the Committee on 23 July 2015.

The NES-PF would introduce one set of rules across the country for plantation forestry activities. The draft rules are focused on making forestry activities permitted (i.e. not need a consent) provided conditions attached to the activity can be met. For some defined effects associated with production forestry, councils would be permitted to introduce rules that are more stringent than the NES-PF.

The submission identifies potentially significant costs that will have to be met by councils in monitoring permitted activities under the NES-PF.

The submission notes that the scale of mapping used in the NES-PF is too broad and inaccurate for addressing the adverse effects of forestry activities in the field. It seeks that land that has already been mapped at 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 (as has occurred in Taranaki) and a methodology for future mapping at a larger scale, be included within the NES-PF prior to it coming into effect.

The submission comments on areas where the Council believes there should be more flexibility in making rules which are more stringent than the NES-PF.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum ‘Submission on NES for Plantation Forestry’ 2. endorses the submission.

Background The Council has made a submission to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) on proposals for a National Environmental Standard for Planation Forestry (NES-PF) under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Members will recall having received and discussed an item on the NES-PF at the last meeting of the Committee held on 23 July 2015. It was agreed that the Council’s submission should reiterate the concerns expressed about the costs of permitted activity monitoring for which there was no ability of councils to recover costs, and the suitability of the scale of mapping of areas of erosion risk. There was also general concern around the costs and benefits of the NES. It was agreed that where appropriate, matters raised the last time the Council made submissions on proposals for a national environmental standard for plantation forestry in 2010, would again be raised for consideration.

The main reason for justifying a national environmental standard for planation forestry is the ‘unwarranted variation’ in regional and district plans across the country in the way plantation forestry is regulated which according to the consultation document, creates unnecessary costs and complexity for all forestry sector participants and leads to uncertain environmental outcomes.

For some defined effects associated with production forestry, councils would be permitted to introduce rules that are more stringent than the NES-PF while other matters, for example, fire risk, are outside of the scope of the national environmental standard altogether.

The proposed NES-PF has been developed in the form of a set of indicative draft rules. Following consultation and further reporting to ministers and the preparation of an evaluation report on the proposal under section 32 of the RMA, draft regulations would be prepared.

If the decision is to proceed with an NES-PF, MPI expects that regulations would be notified in the New Zealand Gazette in the first quarter of 2016 and come into force later in 2016. This is to allow time for those responsible for implementing the rules and conditions (regional and district councils), along with forest owners and others, to familiarise themselves with the changes.

The submission The submission firstly points out certain core principles of local government relating to democracy, community and public participation in decision-making are likely to be undermined by the NES-PF. It also raises questions over the uncertainty of the costs and benefits of the NES-PF and calls for the section 32 report to re-examine all costs and benefits associated with the NES-PF and attempt to quantify these wherever possible.

The submission identifies potentially significant costs that will have to be met by councils in monitoring permitted activities under the NES-PF. There is no ability under the RMA for the Council to recover its reasonable costs associated with monitoring permitted activities and so the costs will have to be met by general ratepayers.

The submission calls for some activities to become ‘controlled activities’ to enable local authorities to recover their reasonable costs associated with implementing the NES-PF or alternatively amending the RMA to allow costs to be charged for permitted activity monitoring.

The submission comments on areas where the Council believes there should be more flexibility in making rules which are more stringent than the NES-PF. For example, The NES- PF allows more stringent rules to be made to give effect the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management but limits these to particular outstanding or significant waterbodies identified in in regional plans.

The submission generally supports the setback distances set for afforestation and harvesting activities and to requirements for the preparation of Harvest and Erosion and Sediment Control plans. However the submission notes that it will be important that regional councils be involved in the development of the templates for harvest and erosion and sediment control plans as the templates provide an opportunity for councils to seek changes to the plans before operations commence and (in part) determine whether the activity remains a permitted activity or not.

Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.

Policy considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council.

Attachment Document 1542870: Submission on a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

11 August 2015 Document: 1542870

Spatial, Forestry and Land Management Ministry of Primary Industries PO Box 2526 Wellington 6140

Attention: Stuart Miller

Dear Sir

Submission on a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

Introduction

1. The Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) thanks the Ministry for Primary Industries for the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF).

2. The Council makes this submission in recognition of its: • resource management responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and general advocacy responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002, and • regional advocacy responsibilities whereby the Council represents the Taranaki region on matters of regional interest and concern.

3. The Council acknowledges the intent of the NES-PF to resolve industry concerns about the variation in regulatory controls in district and regional plans concerning the forestry sector and the operational uncertainty that this generates for the sector. The Council also acknowledges the potential benefits of forestry, particularly on marginal hill country land, and supports proposals that would encourage forestry as a sustainable land use on such land.

4. The Council appreciates that the proposal for a national environmental standard for plantation forestry as outlined in the consultation document may well change as a result of comments received during public meetings and hui as well as the submissions received.

5. An evaluation report under section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will also be required and this report will need to examine the extent to which the objectives of the proposed NES-PF are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the RMA. The Council considers this evaluation to be a particularly

important part of testing whether there are other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives and identifying and quantifying, as accurately as possible, the likely environmental, economic, social and cultural benefits and costs of the proposal.

6. It is vital that the assumptions and the economic drivers that underpin the NES-PF are correct and that this can be demonstrated with confidence. It will also be important once the NES-PF is approved (if this is the decision), that the assumptions and the economics of proceeding with the NES-PF remain over time i.e. monitoring of the cost-effectiveness of the NES-PF should be a strong feature of any feedback loop from the beginning.

7. The remaining parts of this submission make some general comments on the NES-PF in relation to its effects on local decision-making and the expected benefits and costs of the current proposal, before addressing specific aspects of the proposal.

General comments

Undermining local decision making

8. It is the Council’s view that the NES-PF undermines fundamental principles in relation to local governance. These include: • Local autonomy and decision-making: communities should be free to make decisions that directly affect them and councils should have the autonomy to respond to community needs; • Accountability to local communities: councils are accountable to communities, and not to central government, for the decisions they make on behalf of those communities; and • Local differences means local solutions are the best fit: One-size-fits-all solutions such as those promoted by the current NES-PF, are over-engineered to meet all circumstances and create unnecessary costs for local communities.

9. The Council agrees with the forestry sector and the Ministry for Primary Industries that consultation and participation in RMA processes may be time consuming and costly. However, an examination of virtually any environmental issue is likely to show variation among councils. Dealing with this variation is a large part of giving effect to core principles of local government relating to democracy, community and public participation in local decision-making.

10. Having said this, there are clearly some matters that can be standardised across the country but the Council questions whether the full range of forestry related activities proposed in the NES-PF are necessary and appropriate for national consistency reasons. Both the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 recognise the role of local government and the relationship they have with their community and provide for variation in resource management issues.

11. Despite the NES-PF giving councils the ability to apply more stringent rules in specific circumstances than what are provided for in the current proposals for the NES-PF, these are limited to certain matters only and have been quite tightly

prescribed. Most rules will apply to forestry activities no matter where they are undertaken.

Recommendation 1: That the diminution of local decision-making be factored in to the report to the Minister for the Environment and in the section 32 report.

Uncertainty over costs and benefits

12. The consultation document (page 31) refers to two reports previously prepared by the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research (NZIER) in 2011 and 2012 which showed that the costs of an NES-PF outweighed the benefits. The Consultation document states that since 2011 there have been changes that have altered the findings of the previous cost benefit analysis and it outlines what these are.

13. The overall conclusion from recent work by NZIER is that now the benefits outweigh the costs and fall within a range of 1.41 and 2.98. Costs would mainly fall on both small and large forest owners and local government because of increases in consents and associated compliance monitoring as well as increased requirements for permitted activity monitoring and auditing. Benefits to a range of stakeholders are expected from a reduction in plan advocacy costs and a reduction in plan development costs for councils.

14. A separate analysis of environmental impacts by Scion concluded that there would be environmental benefits from the proposed NES-PF that would increase NZIER’s benefit-cost ratio. However, some of these environmental benefits, such as avoided erosion as a result of greater control of harvesting practices on highly erosion-prone land vary greatly – from $466,000 to $10.6 million per year – which reflects the range of assumptions about the amount of avoided erosion that is likely to occur under the NES-PF.

15. The Regulatory Impact Statement notes that uncertainty remains about the size of some expected costs and benefits. As noted in the Regulatory Impact Statement (page 2), this uncertainty primarily relates to: • assumptions about the extent to which trends in variation and stringency in district and regional planning rules would increase; • assumptions about the effect of the NES-PF, for example on the number and cost of consents, the extent to which councils will use their ability to develop more stringent rules in certain areas and the extent to which plan advocacy costs will decline; and • quantification of costs and benefits – not all benefits can be quantified and some quantified values have a large uncertainty range.

16. The Regulatory Impact Statement goes on to note that the marginal effects of the NES-PF have been analysed at a national level and have not been assessed against the existing plan rules of every district and regional council. As a result the localised impacts of the policy are uncertain due to differences in local topography and operating rules.

17. While opportunities for increased stringency have been limited to certain matters, the Council believes that in many cases councils will look to put more stringent rules in place to account for and protect local values that they consider have not been adequately covered by the NES-PF. This has the potential to seriously undermine the balance of costs and benefits by increasing the costs associated with plan development and plan advocacy from those that are assumed under the NES-PF.

18. The Council submits that the section 32 evaluation report should look to re-examine all costs and benefits and attempt to quantify these with some accuracy (as far as possible), given the relatively low benefit cost ratios that the NZIER work has produced and the uncertainty around a number of important assumptions made in the Consultation document that have been previously referred to. Certainly in the Taranaki context, the Council believes the NES-PF will lead to an increase in regulation of forestry in this region, and to increased costs to both the forestry sector and to this Council through increased compliance monitoring of resource consents and monitoring of permitted activities. The Council further does not believe there will be a commensurate increase in benefits such that benefits exceed costs.

19. The Council questions whether this increased regulatory imposition on forestry in Taranaki is consistent with Government calls for less unnecessary regulation across all sectors of the economy. Further comment is provided on this issue later in this submission.

Recommendation 2: That the section 32 report re-examine all costs and benefits associated with the proposed NES-PF and attempt to quantify these wherever possible.

Specific comments

Increased costs of permitted activity monitoring

20. One of the underlying tenets of the NES-PF is that, where possible, activities should be permitted (i.e. not require a resource consent), provided permitted activity conditions can be met.

21. Eight different production forestry activities have been identified and all are permitted in Green, Yellow and Orange Zones except earthworks in the Orange Zone on land that is over 25 degrees in slope where a restricted discretionary consent is required. Even in the Red Zone, which has a very high susceptibility to erosion, there is a mix of permitted, controlled and restricted discretionary activities. This permissive regime is supported by a raft of conditions that have to be complied with if the activity is to remain permitted. Forest owners will have to prepare a Harvest Plan, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Forestry Quarry Management Plan, as well as comply with a number of other conditions, to remain within the with permitted activity classification.

22. The proposed NES-PF is clear that it will be councils who will be required to monitor permitted activity conditions. However, there is no ability under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the Council to recover the reasonable costs associated with

monitoring permitted activities and so the costs will have to be met by general ratepayers.

23. The cost to the Council is potentially large. Our current plans do not regulate some activities (e.g. mechanical land preparation), and for other activities, the number and complexity of the conditions that have to be met under the NES-PF is significantly greater than our current plan provisions.

24. Furthermore, the lack of certainty in some of the permitted activity conditions creates difficulties for the Council when it comes to compliance and enforcement. For example, in the harvesting rules one of the permitted activity conditions for ‘slash and debris management’ is that wherever it is safe and practicable to do so potentially unstable slash that has the potential to mobilise under flood flows must be removed. These matters involve a degree of subjective discretion that take them beyond what can be legally required as conditions of a permitted activity and will result in more time and cost for Council staff in assessing compliance, especially if forest owners disagree with the Council assessment.

Recommendations 3 & 4: Amend the proposed NES-PF so that: • consideration be given to making some activities ‘controlled activities’ to enable local authorities to recover some of the costs associated with the proposed NES-PF (or alternatively amend the RMA to allow costs to be charged for permitted activity monitoring), • the subjective discretion from permitted activity conditions be removed.

Scale of mapping not appropriate

25. The Erosion Susceptibility Classification (ESC) is fundamental to the NES-PF. However, the maps on which the ESC are based are at a scale of 1:63, 600 or 1:50, 000 which in the Council’s view are far too broad and inaccurate for addressing adverse effects from forestry activities in the field. The Council raised this issue during the 2010 consultations. The response has been to contract Landcare Research Ltd to update the ESC but this has been done at the same scale. This has resulted in some significant changes ranging from 3.6% to 40.8% in land that has been reclassified. The extent of the reclassification confirms the Council’s earlier concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the ESC.

26. In addition it is proposed that a formal process will be implemented to enable councils (and others) to have an existing ESC classification reassessed if there are concerns about accuracy. This process will allow land to be mapped at a finer scale to more accurately reflect the erosion features of the land concerned. Once re-mapped there would be a requirement for the NES-PF to be amended to bring the re-mapped area within the NES-PF.

27. The Council understands that it would be up to councils to pay for this re-mapping if they thought larger scale mapping was required.

28. In Taranaki, some 65% of the privately owned land in the eastern hill country has been mapped at a scale 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 following the New Zealand Land Use Capability methodology. This mapping has been done as part of the Council’s sustainable land management programme where individual farm plans have been prepared in conjunction with landowners to put erosion-prone land in the eastern hill country on a sustainable footing. The Council plans to eventually extend its sustainable land management programme to all privately owned land in the eastern hill country.

29. In the Council’s experience, mapping down to 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 is essential if all erosion-prone land is to be picked up and sustainably managed. Mapping at 1: 63,600 or 1:50,000 will simply not identify all erosion-prone land within the relevant units – particularly Class 7 and 8 land.

30. The Council would like to see all land that it has currently mapped at 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 included within the NES-PF prior to it coming into effect and a methodology approved and also included within the NES-PF to allow future mapped areas to be included.

31. Alternatively, if larger scale mapping was not considered necessary, the Council considers that at least afforestation and harvesting activities should become controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activities in the Orange Zone rather than the currently proposed permitted activity. This would enable the Council to consider an application for resource consent more closely and potentially exclude pockets of land of high erosion susceptibility from the consent.

Recommendations 5 & 6: Amend the proposed NES-PF ensure that: • land already mapped at 1:5,000 or 1:10,000 and a methodology for future mapped areas, be included within the NES-PF prior to it coming into effect or alternatively • afforestation and harvesting activities in the Orange Zone become controlled, restricted discretionary or discretionary activities.

Links with the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

32. The Council is currently giving effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM).

33. The NES-PF allows councils to make more stringent rules to manage the impacts of forestry activities in tightly defined circumstances. These include: the need to meet the requirements of the NPSFM and to meet Freshwater Management Unit limits; to prevent adverse effects on the significant values of an outstanding waterbody that have been specified in a Water Conservation Order or regional plan; to establish appropriate setbacks for outstanding freshwater bodies as defined in the NPSFM and identified in a regional policy statement or regional plan; to manage impacts on the significant value of wetlands identified under the NPSFM and specified in a regional plan; and to manage risks to groundwater systems, specifically only in relation to

quarrying activities occurring over shallow aquifers within a drinking water protection zone identified in a regional plan.

34. However, the provisions outlined above apply only to specific values, water bodies and locations identified in plans. A number of the provisions refer to ‘outstanding’ water bodies. The Council is in the early stages of identifying outstanding or significant values of water bodies and is aware that other councils around the country are at different stages of this process. Councils have until 2025 to give effect to the NPSFM. Identifying outstanding water bodies is time consuming and expensive and involves possible appeals to the Environment Court. The Proposed NES-PF has the potential to cut across this work.

35. In addition to this, the Council’s regional policy statement and regional plans take a wider view of the importance of other water bodies and wetlands for sustainable management, not just those that are outstanding or significant. The proposed NES- PF provisions in relation to the ability to be more stringent are limited to these narrowly defined areas or sites identified in plans and therefore other important areas that the Council considers might warrant more stringent protection from forestry activities will not have the same level of protection.

Recommendation 7: Amend the proposed NES-PF to include provision for regional councils to make more stringent rules for the management of the potential adverse effects of plantation forestry on abroad range of regionally determined freshwater management priorities to give full effect to the NPSFM.

Biodiversity

36. The specific matters that allow more stringent rules to be made in relation to biodiversity are limited to mapped areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna identified in a regional policy statement, regional plan or district plan pursuant to section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Appendix 3 page 98). These areas may include wetlands.

37. Mapping is just one form of identifying such areas and it would be problematic for this Council if mapping was required before more stringent rules could be applied. This is because in our Draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan the Council has identified significant values of wetlands (for example by reference to nationally threatened or regionally distinctive species that are present in wetland habitats in Taranaki) but have not mapped them. The cost of ground-truthing and mapping thousands of quite often small (but significant) wetlands and/or other significant habitats of indigenous flora and fauna would be prohibitive for regions and districts and the mapping is likely to be an incomplete representation of the values sought to be protected.

38. The Council submits that more stringent rules should be able to be made for the protection of indigenous biodiversity without these areas having to be mapped. The application of criteria such as ‘threatened’ or ‘at risk’ or ‘regionally distinctive’ species would assist in this task.

Recommendation 8: Amend the proposed NES-PF to clarify that regional councils and territorial authorities may make more stringent rules for the management of the potential adverse effects of plantation forestry on a broad range of regionally and locally determined management priorities for indigenous biodiversity.

River crossings

39. The Council questions whether the proposed rules dealing with river crossings are necessary as the effects of river crossing rules will vary from region to region because of differing topography and climatic regimes. Within regions, there will also be similar rules for many activities which are not limited to production forestry. This raises the possibility of conflict between users as some would be faced with more stringent conditions than what is permitted under the NES-PF. For example, in our Draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan the contributing catchment area for a bridge (as a permitted activity) is less than 200 ha whereas under the NES-PF the contributing catchment area for battery culverts and drift decks is less than 500 ha for a permitted activity. The lower contributing catchment area in Taranaki reflects our high rainfall and steep catchments. The more permissive regime for production forestry activities creates inconsistencies that are not based on adverse effects in the Taranaki situation.

40. Given the variation in hydrogeologic conditions around the country the Council submits that councils be allowed to mange river crossings under existing legislation which is better suited to local conditions.

Recommendation 9: That the proposed NES-PF be amended to allow councils to manage the adverse effects of river crossings under current legislation which is better suited to local conditions.

Standard templates for harvest plans and erosion and sediment control plans

41. The requirement for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and a Harvest Plan to be submitted to the Council before earthworks and harvesting operations begin is a positive step forward in managing the effects of production forestry operations.

42. The Council supports the development of standard templates for harvest plans and erosion and sediment control plans. This will help in reducing litigation for the Council and in ensuring consistency of treatment among forest companies.

43. However, it is important that regional councils are closely involved in the development of such templates and that the templates contain specific requirements for forestry operators. They will spell out the details to be complied with and provide an opportunity for councils to seek changes to harvest plans and erosion and sediment control plans before operations commence. They will also determine (in part) whether the activity remains a permitted activity or whether consent will be required.

Recommendation 10: That regional councils be closely involved in the development of templates for erosion and sediment control plans and harvest plans.

Setbacks

44. The Council generally supports the setback distances set for afforestation, harvesting and replanting activities in the proposed NES-PF. These have the potential to reduce litigation for the Council in relation to setbacks from rivers and streams, wetlands, lakes and the coastal marine area.

45. The Council supports the specific, detailed comments made by Local Government New Zealand on setback distances contained in the Schedule to its submission.

Conclusion

46. The Council thanks the Ministry for Primary Industries for the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed NES-PF.

47. Given the uncertainty and wide variation in the benefits and costs of the proposed NES-PF, the Council considers that considerably more attention needs to be given to the likely costs and benefits of the proposal during preparation of the section 32 report under the RMA. In the case of Taranaki, the Council is in no doubt that as currently formulated, the proposed NES-PF would lead to an increase in the costs both to industry and to the Council in regulating forestry activities in the region with little commensurate benefit.

48. It is important that the economic drivers that underpin the NES-PF can be demonstrated from the outset to be correct and that once in place, monitoring of its cost-effectiveness occurs.

49. In relation to specific matters, the Council has concerns regarding the increased costs of permitted activity monitoring, the scale of mapping, links to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, biodiversity and river crossings. While the Council supports aspects of the proposed NES-PF such as setbacks and templates for harvest and erosion and sediment control plans, these do not outweigh the disadvantages of proceeding with the proposed NES-PF.

50. The Council considers that one of the alternatives to be considered during the section 32 process should be that the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry for the

Environment use the work they have done to date to promote best practice guidelines in regions where this is needed.

Yours faithfully BG Chamberlain Chief Executive

per: A D McLay Director - Resource Management

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Bathing beach recreational water quality SEM report 2014-2015

Item: 3

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1548959

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present to the Committee the report on the quality of coastal bathing waters in the Taranaki region during the 2014-2015 bathing season. The Executive summary and recommendations from the report are attached to this memorandum. The full report is available upon request, and will be published on the Council’s website following this meeting.

Executive summary The report provides an assessment of microbial water quality at 12 bathing beach sites in the Taranaki region, based on routine summer monitoring of faecal indicator bacteria (enterococci, E. coli and faecal coliforms) in the 2014-2015 summer. A core group of 9 beaches is monitored every year, and another 10 are monitored in the course of a rotating 3-year cycle. Results are assessed for any evidence of trends, and for compliance with microbiological water quality guidelines for recreational use, prepared by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and the Ministry of Health (MfE, 2003), and are released to the public via the Council’s website.

Thirteen samples are collected at every site under bathing conditions (‘SEM samples’), with 5 of the sites having a further 7 samples collected at each, under all-weather and all-tide conditions (‘MfE samples’).

During the 2014-2015 summer season, microbiological water quality was generally very good across bathing beaches in the Taranaki region. Extremely low median enterococci counts were recorded for almost all beaches monitored (10 beaches with 8 or less enterococci cfu/100ml), which is better than the median count in 2013-2014 of 29, a median that was more typical of those in recent years. No site entered the MfE ‘Action’ level (defined as two consecutive samples containing more than 280 enterococci cfu/100ml) at any time during the season, and no single sample was above 280 enterococci cfu/100ml either. The last time any site entered this mode was in 2012-2013.

Out of the 156 samples collected for SEM purposes, 97% were below the intermediate ‘Alert’ level (last year, 94%), a surveillance trigger; out of the 191 samples collected for both SEM and for additional monitoring purposes, 96% were below the ‘Alert’ level (compared to 95% in 2013-2014, more than 95% in 2012-2013, more than 94% in 2011-2012, and 93% in 2010-2011).

In the 2014-2015 season, Waitara East beach was the region’s cleanest bathing beach. The water quality at this beach has been steadily improving over the years. Over the long term, Opunake and Fitzroy beaches are amongst the region’s cleanest. Fitzroy and Ngamotu beaches are showing statistically significant improvements in water quality. Oakura beach at the surf club site is now showing a statistically significant deterioration. While Ohawe Beach has shown a trend of improvement in previous years (following the removal of the Eltham waste water discharge into the Waingongoro River), the quality has now stabilized. While still giving an indication of a reduction (improvement), the test of the statistical rigour of this reduction places it just outside the value that would identify it as a significant improvement.

During the 2014-2015 season 3 beaches recorded their lowest or equal lowest SEM enterococci median counts to date (20 years record)- Waitara East, Waitara West, and Urenui. In the case of the two Waitara beaches, this has been the first season that the discharge of treated municipal sewage has been diverted to New Plymouth. Having noted that, the Waitara River rather than the outfall is considered to have the greater effect on bacteriological quality on the beaches; and both beaches have been showing an improving trend over recent years in any case.

Oakura Surf Club and Ohawe recorded the highest median enterococci counts of the season (57 and 24 cfu/100ml, respectively). As a matter of perspective, these medians represent respectively just 20% and 10% of the ‘Action’ threshold. In the case of the Oakura surf club site, two streams have shifted their course across the beach to be close to the sampling site in the season under review. A fresh water influence was noted on several sampling occasions.

Through the Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) and 2014-2015 Annual Plan, the Council’s target in respect of the microbiological state of coastal bathing sites is that there is maintenance or increase in the number of sites from 2003 compliant with 2003 Ministry of Health contact recreational guidelines. In 2003, 10 of 11 coastal bathing sites were compliant with the guidelines (‘Action’ levels). In the season under review, 12 of 12 sites were compliant. The Council has thus met its Annual Plan target.

In terms of public interest in information about water quality at bathing beaches, the Committee may note that during the 12 months from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015, 864 individual page visits were recorded interrogating the Council’s coastal bathing water quality pages. This is an increase of 8% over visits in the corresponding period the previous year, which in turn saw an increase of 6% over the previous year. The figures do not include anyone viewing the environmental data map only on the Council’s home page. Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of the report Bathing Beach Water Quality State of the Environment Monitoring Report Summer 2014-2015 Technical Report 2015-11

2. adopts the specific recommendations presented in Technical Report 2015-11.

Background Taranaki’s coastal and inland fresh waters are widely used for a range of contact recreational activities such as swimming, sailing, surfing, wind surfing, and underwater diving. The sea is important as a source of kaimoana. Maintaining and protecting the quality of this recreational water is therefore an important resource management and public health issue.

It is recognised that the quality of coastal waters in New Zealand is variable. It can be compromised by contaminants from sources such as sewage and storm water outfalls, septic tanks, urban run-off, birdlife, sanitation discharges from boats, and dairy effluent discharges and contaminated run-off from agricultural land. The Ministry for the Environment has identified that intensifying land uses in rural areas and rapid urban development of coastal areas has the potential to put increasing pressure on the quality of our coastal recreational waters.

As one of the suite of State of the Environment (SEM) monitoring programmes that the Council has in place, each summer bathing water quality around the region’s coastline is assessed. Nine primary beach sites are repeatedly sampled during the bathing season every year, and another ten beaches are sampled every third year on a rotating basis. The programme began in 1995-1996.

The bacteriological state of each site is compared with national guidelines1.

Through the Council’s LTP and 2014-2015 Annual Plan, the Council’s target in respect of the microbiological state of coastal bathing sites is that there is maintenance or increase in the number of sites from 2003 compliant with 2003 Ministry of Health contact recreational guidelines. In 2003, 10 of 11 coastal bathing sites were compliant with the guidelines (‘Action’ level). Discussion The report presented to the Committee today summarises the results for the 2014-2015 bathing season, including beaches monitored in year three of the rotation.

Thirteen samples were collected over the bathing season at each of the twelve sites designated for the season, as part of the Council’s regular SEM monitoring programme, with an additional seven samples collected at five of the beaches to fulfil Ministry for the Environment requirements for calculation of microbiological assessment categories (which go beyond the Council’s long-established programme and are sampled under a different protocol, including all-weather and all-tide conditions).

The monitoring results have been assessed using the national microbiological guidelines for marine recreational areas (MfE, 2003). The indicator bacteria measured are enterococci. Levels of less than 140 enterococci per 100 ml are considered to be acceptable (i.e. water quality is suitable for bathing, and approximately weekly sampling is routinely undertaken for surveillance purposes). Should any of these routine samples contain greater than 140 enterococci per 100 ml, the ‘Alert’ mode is triggered – water is considered potentially unsuitable for bathing, and further sampling is undertaken. This is a surveillance mode, and it is not considered that public health is potentially compromised if samples are at this level. Samples containing greater than 280 enterococci per 100 ml indicate water is highly likely to

1 Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas, Ministry for the Environment 2003

be contaminated. Sampling is to be undertaken again within 24 hours to see if the situation is continuing. If the second result is also above 280 then the ‘Action’ mode is triggered. That is, it is when there are two consecutive samples above 280 enterococci per 100 ml that it is considered public health is potentially compromised. If this occurs, the Taranaki District Health Board is notified for their follow-up action. High flows in streams and rivers following rainfall events may have a major localised influence on the water quality of Taranaki beaches, and re-sampling is not always undertaken if a significant rainfall event in the recent past is determined to be the likely cause of a sample exceeding 280 enterococci per 100 ml.

Microbiological water quality was generally very good across bathing beaches in the Taranaki region during the 2014-2015 summer season. Very low median enterococci counts (less than 8 enterococci cfu/100 ml) were recorded for 10 of the 12 beaches monitored, much lower than in the past few years (there were no more than 8 enterococci cfu/100ml at any site, compared with the median for the previous the summers of 29 and 37 cfu/100ml, respectively, and the ‘Action’ level of 280 cfu/100ml). Out of the 156 samples collected for SEM purposes, 97% were below the intermediate ‘Alert’ or surveillance level (last year, 94%); out of the 191 samples collected for both SEM and for additional monitoring purposes, 96% were below the ‘Alert’ level (compared to 95% in 2013-2014, more than 95% in 2012-2013, more than 94% in 2011-2012, and 93% in 2010-2011).

No site reached MfE ‘Action’ mode (two consecutive samples above 280 enterococci cfu/100ml) during the 2013-2014 summer. No single sample reached this threshold either. One event fell into this category once during 2012-2013, an atypical result for Taranaki. At 8 of the 12 sites, no sample entered even the Alert mode (last year 7 of 12)..

In terms of indicative (as distinct from statistically significant) trends, a further five sites are showing signs of reductions in median enterococci, while two are showing signs of an increase ie improvements are outnumbering deteriorations by around 4 to 1 overall.

Oakura Surf Club and Ohawe recorded the highest median enterococci counts of the season

(57 and 24 cfu/100ml, respectively). As a matter of perspective, these medians represent respectively just 20% and 10% of the ‘Action’ threshold. In the case of the Oakura surf club site, two streams have shifted their course across the beach to be close to the sampling site in the season under review. A fresh water influence was noted on several sampling occasions. As noted above, the median count at Ohawe beach in 2014-2015 was still lower than in some recent years.

Going back three years to the 2011-2012 summer bathing season, 5 of the 12 beach sites recorded their lowest or equal lowest SEM programme enterococci seasonal median counts, for the 16 years the programme had been running to that time. This trend continued during the next season, when 7 of the 13 beaches recorded their lowest or equal lowest SEM programme enterococci seasonal median counts to date. In 2013-2014, 4 of the 12 beaches recorded their lowest/equal lowest median enterococci counts to date (18 years of measurements). In the season under review, 3 more beaches (Urenui, Waitara East, Waitara West) recorded their lowest or equal lowest median enterococci counts ever recorded in the Sem programme. On the other hand, the Oakura Surf club site recorded its worst median count. As noted above, there were particular localized drivers for this deterioration.

Frequent and timely reporting of the results of bacteriological water quality was undertaken by use of the Taranaki Regional Council website (www.trc.govt.nz) as well as liaison with territorial local authorities and the Health Protection Unit of Taranaki District Health Board throughout the summer bathing season of 2014-2015.

Continuation of the bathing beach SEM programme in the 2015-2016 year is recommended. Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council.

Appendices/Attachments Document 1533263: Bathing Beach Water Quality State of the Environment Monitoring Report Summer 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-11 (executive summary and recommendations)

Executive summary

This report provides an assessment of microbial water quality at 12 bathing beach sites in the Taranaki region, based on routine summer monitoring of faecal indicator bacteria (enterococci, E. coli and faecal coliforms) conducted by the Council between 10 November 2014 and 20 March 2015. The report focusses on enterococci results, as this indicator is considered to provide the closest correlation with risks of health effects in New Zealand coastal waters. Results have been assessed for compliance with microbiological water quality guidelines prepared by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and the Ministry of Health (MfE, 2003).

Thirteen samples were collected at every monitored beach under dry weather conditions for state of the environment monitoring (SEM) purposes. An extra 7 samples were collected regardless of weather conditions at 5 sites, to satisfy MfE grading purposes.

During the 2014-2015 summer season, microbiological water quality was generally good across bathing beaches in the Taranaki region. The highest median enterococci counts were recorded at Oakura Surf Club and Ohawe (57 and 24 enterococci cfu/100 ml respectively). Median enterococci counts at all other beaches were equal to or less than 8 cfu/100 ml. Out of the 191 samples collected for both SEM and for additional monitoring purposes, 96% were below the Alert level. Of the few samples which individually entered the Alert guideline category (4%), over two thirds (5 out of 7) had been influenced by rainfall or freshwater.

The guideline MfE ‘Action’ mode is reached when enterococci counts in two consecutive samples exceed 280 enterococci cfu/100 ml. No site reached Action mode during the 2014- 2015 season and no individual sample exceeded 280 enterococci cfu/100 ml.

Mann-Kendall tests were performed in order to assess long term trends in microbiological water quality. Two sites show a significant decrease in median enterococci counts over the 13- 20 years monitored (Fitzroy and Ngamotu), indicating an overall improvement in microbiological water quality. Oakura Surf Club was the only site where there was a significant increase in enterococci medians over the time period monitored i.e. deterioration in water quality. This increase in enterococci counts was significant using the Man-Kendall test, but not significant after False Discovery Rate application. All other sites showed no significant change.

During the 2014-2015 season, 3 of the 12 beach sites recorded the lowest or equal lowest SEM enterococci median counts in the 20 years of the programme to date (Urenui, Waitara East and Waitara West Beach). At Oakura Surf Club the median enterococci count obtained for the 2014-2015 summer season was the highest to date at this site. Interannual variation in median enterococci counts at this site can be largely attributed to the changing location of the small stream mouths relative to the sampling site.

Microbiological water quality results were regularly reported on the Taranaki Regional Council website (www.trc.govt.nz) and there was timely liaison with territorial local authorities and the Health Protection Unit of the Taranaki District Health Board throughout the summer bathing season of 2014-2015.

Through the Council’s LTP, the Council’s target in respect of the microbiological state of coastal bathing sites is that there is maintenance or increase in the number of sites from 2003 compliant with 2003 Ministry of Health contact recreational guidelines. In 2003, 10 of 11 coastal bathing sites were compliant with the guidelines (‘Action’ levels). In the season under

review, 12 of 12 beaches were compliant with the guidelines. The LTP target was therefore met.

Continuation of the bathing beach SEM programme is recommended in the 2015-2016 year.

6. Recommendations As a result of the 2014-2015 summer marine contact recreation bacteriological survey it is recommended:

1. THAT the 2015-2016 summer survey be performed at 13 sites continuing with the existing sampling protocol (annual, plus Year 1 sites).

2. THAT the 2015-2016 summer survey also includes an additional 7 samples collected at the five principal usage sites (Onaero, Fitzroy, Ngamotu, Oakura SC, and Opunake) in accordance with MfE, 2003 guidelines.

3. THAT follow-up sampling be performed as deemed necessary by Council staff. This should include follow-up samples within 24 hours of any samples exceeding 280 cfu/100 ml in order to assess if Action level has been reached.

4. THAT reporting of results be performed as appropriate during the season, and in an Annual Report upon completion of the season’s programme.

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Regional freshwater recreational bathing water quality report for 2014-2015

Item: 4

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1546773

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Committee on the results of the ‘state of the environment’ monitoring programme for freshwater contact recreational water quality, for the 2014-2015 bathing season (Freshwater contact recreational water quality at selected Taranaki sites State of the Environment Monitoring Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-01, September 2015). The full report is available upon request, and will be published on the Council’s website following this meeting. This memorandum summarises the report’s data and results, and the Executive Summary from the report is attached as an appendix. Executive summary The Council’s Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki recognises point source and diffuse source discharges of contaminants to surface freshwater as a significant resource management issue. The Council seeks to manage the quality and effects of such discharges through consents (for point sources) and programmes such as riparian exclusion and plantings (diffuse sources). Progressive improvement in in-stream water quality is achieved as consent conditions are made more rigorous, and land managers undertake new fencing and planting.

The Council’s State of the Environment monitoring programmes include a programme to monitor the state and any changes in the state of the recreational quality of the region’s freshwaters. Results are publicly reported in near real time via the Council’s website, and annually at the end of each season. During the 12 months from July 2014 to June 2015, 3281 individual page visits were recorded interrogating the Council’s freshwater bathing quality pages. This is a considerable increase of 31% over visits in the corresponding period the previous year. The figures do not include anyone viewing the environmental data map only on the Council’s home page.

The latest report (for summer 2014-2015) is available as a separate item, and the Executive Summary of the report is attached to this memorandum as an appendix, for Members’ information. Sixteen sites were monitored for bacteriological quality, with nine of these sites also monitored for benthic cyanobacteria as well. Four sites were monitored for both bacteriological quality and planktonic cyanobacteria- Lake Rotomanu, Lake Opunake, and Lake Ratapiko. Lake Rotokare was monitored solely for planktonic cyanobacteria. In the year under review, there was no further investigations at designated bathing sites into particular sources of bacterial contamination, although environmental forensic DNA analytical techniques were applied elsewhere to investigate particular discharges.

The previous three years have seen recreational water quality improve each year. However, this trend was not continued in 2014-2015, as several sites each recorded a single sample falling into the “Action” category and thus the total number of sites remaining below this category fell by comparison with previous years. The fall was equivalent to the number of sites with a single exceedance.

The total number of samples falling within the “Alert” or “Action” categories (29% of samples) was marginally higher than both the long-term average and the 2013-2014 season (26%). The increase and most of the samples in the “Action’ category were heavily influenced by just two urban sites (the Waiwhakaiho River adjacent to Lake Rotomanu and the mouth of the Te Henui Stream). Fourteen percent of all samples were in the “Action” category; 12% were from just these two sites. Bird life were mainly responsible for the exceedances at these sites. It is particularly noticeable that bacteriological contamination increases sharply as these two waterways flow through urban areas from upstream agricultural areas, because of water fowl in the lower reaches.

8 of the 16 sites remained below the Ministry for the Environment’s ‘Action’ level at all times during the season (13 of 17 in 2013-2014, 10 of 16 in 2012-2013, 11 in 2011-2012, 10 in 2010- 2011). There were 30 samples in the ‘action’ category, as there had been in the previous season. Excluding the results from the 2 sites identified above, more than 96% of all samples (99% in 2013-2014, 97% in 2012-2013, 98% in 2011-2012) met the MfE bathing guideline. At Taranaki freshwater contact recreational sites, it is almost always individual ‘peaks’ rather than the medians that give rise to exceedances of guidelines.

The Council’s 2012-2022 Long-Term Plan (LTP) has as a target for microbiological quality in inland waters, the maintenance or increase in the number of sites compliant with the 2003 Ministry of Health contact recreational guidelines (with 2003-2004 as the baseline year). Out of the 12 inland bathing sites that have been monitored in both seasons, 6 were compliant in 2003- 2004, and 5 in 2014-2015. However, as noted above, in the latest year 4 sites each had only one non-compliant sample. There were 3 such site records in 2003-2004. Taking such sites into account would mean that freshwater recreational quality has been maintained on a regional perspective. There has been a very large increase in non-compliant samples at the mouth of the Te Henui Stream (from 4 in 2003-2004 to 12 in 2014-2015, out of 13 samples)- the equal highest ever found at this site. Excluding this one site from the calculations, the percentage of non-compliant samples last season was much lower than the percentage of non-compliant samples from the same sites in 2003-2004.

While the regional riparian programme will have significant benefits for reducing bacteriological contamination of waterways in the long term, through reducing faecal deposition directly into waterways or on stream banks and through increasing interception and attenuation of runoff, the significant variations in conditions in the last seven seasons,

from two relatively poor seasons in 2008-2010 to four consecutive good seasons in 2010-2014, and now a slightly poorer one again (although not back to the level of 2008-2010), points also to more immediate meteorological and hydrological as well as longer term land management and farming practice influences showing through.

Over the long term, an improvement has emerged in the Waingongoro River at Ohawe Beach (this may be related to the removal of the discharge from the Eltham wastewater treatment plant upstream), and deteriorations at Te Henui Stream, lower Waiwhakaiho River, and Oakura River (in each case waterfowl are the source of microbial pollution).

Members will be aware of the release in 2013 of a report by the Ministry for the Environment, (‘Suitability for swimming’ July 2013 INFO 690), which focused solely on the grading system used by MfE and the Ministry of Health to indicate the presence of risk factors at swimming spots. The Council has repeatedly expressed its disappointment that this system, which does not take into account the state of water as revealed by day to day monitoring, is given so much emphasis, as is its mis-interpretation (eg ‘ 60% of NZ’s waters unsafe to swim in’) by the media. However, it is also acknowledged that on this occasion at least, MfE has noted that the suitability for recreation criteria:

• do not represent an accurate picture of water quality in the catchment • reflect a precautionary approach to managing health risk • are not designed to represent health risks on a particular day • tend to reflect the poorest water quality measured at a site rather than the average water quality • a site may be graded as poor but still be suitable for swimming much of the time • do not replace the site-specific information available on council websites.1

Naturally occurring cyanobacteria blooms occurred from December onwards at Lake Rotokare, necessitating warning notices, while exposed mats of cyanobacteria at several sites were caused by falling river levels, and required warning signage at 3 sites to advise of potential danger, particularly to dogs (who seem drawn to the odour but are then adversely affected by toxins if present within the cyanobacteria). Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council:

1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of the report Freshwater Contact Recreational Water Quality at selected Taranaki sites SEM Monitoring Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-01

2. adopts the specific recommendations presented in Technical Report 2015-01. Background Section 35 of the Resource Management Act requires local authorities to undertake monitoring of the region’s environment, including land, soil, air, and fresh and marine water quality. Monitoring is undertaken to identify pressures upon the regional resources, their state, changes in their state (i.e. trends), and the effectiveness of the policies and actions undertaken to maintain and enhance the environment.

The Taranaki Regional Council initiated freshwater contact recreational water quality monitoring at a number of designated sites as part of Council’s state of the environment

1 Suitability for swimming: Indicator update July 2013: INFO 690, Ministry for the Environment

monitoring (SEM) in 1996. The on-going programme is designed to annually monitor the bacteriological quality of lakes, rivers and streams at popular contact recreational sites. This work is undertaken principally for state of the environment purposes, measuring the current condition of the sites and looking for any trends as indicators of pressures, but the results are also compared with contact recreational guidelines as a means of providing perspective on the significance of the results.

Monitoring is scheduled to be carried out from early November to the end of March (ie the bathing season), but can extend to April, depending on weather conditions.

Freshwater contact recreational water quality monitoring measures the number of bacteria in the sampled water. Three types or families of bacteria were measured in the water sample: E.coli, enterococci, and faecal coliforms. The designated indicator bacterium is E.coli, but the other two parameters allow for further evaluation of sources and trends using the Council’s full database record. Sampling is undertaken according to documented Council procedures, which includes avoidance of elevated river flow conditions.

The proposed programme for each year is work shopped with staff of the three district councils and the Health Protection Unit prior to the start of each season, results are reported in real time on the Council’s website throughout the season, and a full report on all results and findings presented to and discussed with each of the other agencies at the completion of the season. Discussion Programme description

This report examines the bacteriological quality of 16 popular freshwater recreational locations in the region for the 2014- 2015 bathing season. It was the nineteenth such annual survey. Some of the sites have been added

during the programme’s lifetime, Figure 1 Location of freshwater contact recreation survey sites in response to concerns over 2012-2013 cyanobacteria and as changes in access have meant new sites have become more popular. Sampling was completed within the period of early November to early April.

A novel element of the 2009-2010 survey was the use for the first time in Taranaki of environmental forensics, using analysis of DNA in faecal matter to isolate and identify the source of this matter. The technique is relatively new in New Zealand, and is based on the

fact that DNA ‘markers’ vary from species to species, so that it becomes possible now to differentiate between, for example, human, bovine, piscatorial, and avian contamination. The technique has been used to isolate sources affecting water quality in the lower Oakura and Waingongoro Rivers and Timaru and Kaupokonui Streams. In the 2014-2015 period the technique was applied to other, non-bathing, locations.

Sample test results were compared with the Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas (2003). These guidelines are developed to apply to high-contact use of water used intensively for recreational purposes, but are the only national guidelines for any recreational use of water, and so have been applied by the Council to each of the sites without differentiation as to risk e.g. sites where there is paddling or kayaking or children playing in or near the water are treated the same as sites where there is repeated full immersion of swimmers’ heads through activities such as diving or body-surfing rapids. The guidelines note a potential health hazard ‘when the water is used for recreational activities such as swimming and other high-contact water sports. In these activities there is a reasonable risk that water will be swallowed, inhaled (Harrington et al 1993), or come in contact with ears, nasal passages, mucous membranes or cuts in the skin, allowing pathogens to enter the body.

The sites have also been graded for recreational suitability according to MfE, 2003 guidelines, based upon the immediately preceding five seasons of monitoring data (where such data existed). In addition, the Council assesses sites using the Ministry’s ‘Suitability for recreation’ (SFRG) criteria that base grades on surrounding land use. In doing so, it emerges that although most of the sites’ SFRGs suggest possible high risks associated with contact recreational usage, those SFRG gradings have been dictated by the agricultural nature of all catchments (meaning the sites are rated poorly regardless of proven quality).

For example, the 5-year microbiological data to 2013 indicate fifteen of 18 sites achieving compliance on 90% or more of occasions. Yet the only freshwater bathing site in Taranaki graded either ‘good’ or ‘very good’ according to MfE criteria is Lake Rotokare. Further, the Urenui River estuary site, the Waingongoro River site at the Eltham camp, the Patea River estuary site, the Kaupokonui River at the beach, and the Lake Ratapiko site, have never reached the ‘Action’ mode at any time during the last six seasons, under the sampling protocols of the SEM programme, and yet according to the Ministry for the Environment, all these sites should be deemed ‘poor’ sites for bathing.

In general, these data indicate shortcomings in the grading system for these sites that is based upon landuse/perceived impacts, rather than basing gradings upon actual monitoring data measured throughout the bathing seasons. The results of the Council’s contact recreational water quality programmes confirm that gradings do not reflect the recreational water quality experienced by recreational users and therefore should not be used to make any statement about how safe water actually is for recreational purposes. They show only susceptibility, and predominantly reflect perceptions and suppositions about how some land uses might influence quality, as designated ‘risk factors’. It is the view of the Council that when there is regular and systematic testing of the actual quality, those results reflect actual levels and are far more informative and meaningful to recreational water users. The Council emphasises the importance of results of systematic and on-going testing in time of the reporting of actual contact recreational water quality.

It is noted that the Ministry for the Environment now acknowledges that the SFRG ‘reflects a precautionary approach to managing public health risks and does not represent an accurate picture of water quality in the catchment. …‘The grades reflect a precautionary approach to managing health

risk and are not designed to represent health risks on a particular day. They tend to reflect the poorest water quality measured at a site rather than the average water quality. A site may be graded as poor but still be suitable for swimming much of the time….The indicator does not replace the site-specific information available on council websites’2

Frequent, timely reporting of the results of bacteriological water quality was undertaken by use of the Taranaki Regional Council website (www.trc.govt.nz) as well as liaison with territorial local authorities and the Health Protection Unit of Taranaki District Health Board throughout the survey season of 2013-2014.

During the 12 months from July 2014 to June 2015, 3281 individual page visits were recorded to the Council’s freshwater bathing quality pages. This is a considerable increase of 31% over the number of visits in the previous year. The figure does not include anyone who viewed only the Council’s home page, which includes a map of environmental data. Results

The Council’s 2012-2022 Long-Term Plan has as a target for microbiological quality in inland waters, the maintenance or increase in the number of sites compliant with the 2003 Ministry of Health contact recreational guidelines. Out of the 11 inland bathing sites that have been monitored in both seasons, 6 were compliant in 2003-2004, but only 5 in 2014-2015. However, in the latest year another 4 sites each had only one non-compliant sample. There were 3 such site records in 2003-2004. Taking such sites into account would mean that freshwater recreational quality has been maintained on a regional perspective. There has been a very large increase in non-compliant samples at the mouth of the Te Henui Stream (from 4 in 2003-2004 to 12 in 2014-2015, out of 13 samples)- the equal highest ever found at this site. Excluding this one site from the calculations, the percentage of non-compliant samples last season was much lower than the percentage of non-compliant samples from the same sites in 2003-2004.

Compliance with the 2003 guidelines varied at the sixteen freshwater contact recreational sites sampled during the survey period. In relation to the guidelines, two sites (the mouth of the Te Henui Stream and the Waiwhakaiho River site adjacent to Lake Rotomanu) failed almost invariably to meet the E. coli ‘Action’ guideline suitable for contact recreation. On the other hand, the number of non-compliant samples at Lake Rotomanu dropped from 5 in 2011-2012, to none in the last three seasons. Likewise, Lake Opunake has now had 3 seasons without an ‘Action’ sample, after 5 seasons out of 6 with non-compliant samples. All three lake sites complied for 100% of the season’s samples.

It can be noted that the Waiwhakaiho River at Merrilands Domain ie, below the agricultural catchment and within the urban area, consistently has very high quality (99% compliance in the last five years). The deterioration in recreational quality occurs within the city boundaries. Less than one-third of samples in the lower Waiwhakaiho River have complied in the last five years. That is, compliance within the river falls from almost 100% to 33% within the urban reach.

Almost every count at the mouth of the Te Henui Stream lay in the ‘Action’ mode.

Three sites maintained counts below the ‘Alert’ mode at all times throughout the season (6 last season, 3 the year before), while five other sites maintained counts below the ‘Action’ mode at all times (13 last season, 7 the year before). In terms of all samples during the

2 Suitability for swimming: Indicator update July 2013: INFO 690, Ministry for the Environment

monitoring season, there were 30 ‘Action’ samples. Twenty-three of these samples were at just two sites.

Permanent health warning signage had been erected at two sites by the New Plymouth District Council (on the direction of Taranaki District Health Board) following past exceedances of ‘Alert’ levels (at Oakura [for past Waimoku Stream issues] and Waitara township) and signage was required at the lower Waiwhakaiho River, Te Henui Stream, Manganui River, and lower Waingongoro River sites during the season. Vandalism of the warning signs at Waitara has been an on-going issue.

Based upon median E. coli bacterial numbers for the survey period, the following ranking of sites (in descending water quality) may be used to summarise results: 1 Urenui River at estuary 2 Patea River at boatramp, Patea 3 Lake Ratapiko 4 Waiwhakaiho River at Merrilands Domain 5 Lake Rotomanu 6 Lake Opunake at boat ramp 7= Oakura River d/s of SH 45 bridge; Kaupokonui River at beach domain 9 Waitara River at town wharf, Waitara 10= Waingongoro River at Ohawe Beach; Manganui River at Everett Park (d/s of Kurapete Stream) 12 Timaru Stream at Weld Road (near mouth) 13 Waingongoro River at Eltham camp 14 Patea River at King Edward Park, Stratford 15 Waiwhakaiho River adjacent to Lake Rotomanu 16 Te Henui Stream at mouth, East End

The biggest improvement in ranking, in comparison with the 2013-2014 season, occurred at Lake Opunake (where there was an almost 33% improvement in median count between the last two seasons) while the two lowest rankings remained at the two sites which were lowest ranked for the last several seasons. . More sites’ median counts increased (12 sites) than decreased reflecting a general deterioration in bacteriological water quality across the region’s sites in the 2014 –2015 season. This also was reflected in part by a slightly lower proportion of samples (3%) meeting the national guidelines in 2014-2015 in comparison with the previous season.

Temporal trends over the 1996-2015 period have been evaluated for the twelve sites that have with ten years or more data (and will continue to be assessed annually). One site (the Waiwhakaiho River adjacent to lake Rotomanu) show a statistically very significant increasing trend, while two other sites (Te Henui Stream and Oakura River) have shown strong, but not statistically significant, increasing trends in median E. coli counts.

There is variability in quality between bathing seasons at each site, which is related to a variety of reasons including hydrological conditions, stock access, the presence of wildlife (particularly wildfowl), and dairy farm wastes disposal practices in particular. Similar results have been recorded elsewhere for sites in the middle and lower reaches of other streams and rivers in New Zealand (Deely et al, 1997 and MfE, 2008). The Ministry for the Environment identifies dense bird and wildlife populations, agricultural runoff, and storm water or sewerage discharges as potential sources of contamination.

These factors continue to be the major sources of adverse impacts on recreational water quality for the Council to address.

Although cyanobacteria were found at the three designated lake monitoring sites, public health warning trigger levels were exceeded only at Lake Rotokare. Variable benthic cyanobacteria coverage at the nine river/stream sites, although necessitating follow-up surveys on several occasions at three sites, did not exceed public health warning levels, but reached ‘Alert’ levels. Exposed cyanobacteria mats (caused mainly by low falling water levels in late summer or fluctuating hydroelectric power flows) exceeded guidelines on 17 occasions at three sites. Detached mats at the rivers edge exceeded the ‘Action’ level at one site on two occasions. The Council posted an advisory note on is website.

Microbial source determination testing has previously been conducted at four recreational sites, using environmental forensic DNA testing techniques. DNA marker tracking investigations in the lower Oakura and Waingongoro Rivers and Timaru and Kaupokonui Streams have found that the principal faecal contributions were sourced from wildfowl and from ruminants. The Council continues to use the technique for investigative purposes.

The report includes recommendations for the 2015-2016 bathing season that pertain to the scope of the sampling programme and integration with the dairy treatment pond compliance monitoring programme so that any adverse effects and sources can be efficiently identified and appropriate action taken. The recommendations are reproduced as an appendix to this memorandum, for the information of Members. Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act. Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. Policy considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council. Appendices/Attachments Document: 1479647 Executive summary and recommendations from ‘Freshwater contact recreational water quality at selected Taranaki sites State of the Environment Monitoring Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-01, September 2015

Executive summary (from ‘Freshwater contact recreational water quality at selected Taranaki sites State of the Environment Monitoring Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-01’)

This survey of sixteen freshwater contact recreational sites in the Taranaki region was the nineteenth of an on-going programme designed to annually monitor the bacteriological quality of lakes, rivers and streams at popular contact recreational sites during each bathing season. It forms a component of the State of the Environment bathing beaches trend monitoring programme, which commenced in the 1995-1996 summer period. Two sites (at Lakes Ratapiko and Opunake) were monitored in this programme during this 2014-2015 period for the ninth time, partly as a component of the more recently instituted cyanobacteria programme (covering four lakes) instigated after consultation with Taranaki District Health Board. A site in the lower Waitara River was added in the 2010-2011 period at the joint request of Taranaki Healthcare and NPDC and two additional sites in the lower reaches of the Waiwhakaiho River and Te Henui Stream (both adjacent to the New Plymouth walkway) were included in the programme in the 2012-2013 period. The Waimoku Stream sampling has been reduced to a three-yearly frequency and it was not monitored during the current period. The sixteen sites have been graded for recreational suitability (SFRG) according to MfE, 2003 guidelines, in part based upon the immediately preceding five seasons of monitoring data (where such data existed) although short-comings of this grading methodology are acknowledged. A re-assessed SFRG also has been provided by inclusion of the current season’s data for comparative purposes and this showed minimal change although several sites had fewer exceedances of the microbiological water quality guideline over this latest five year period.

A further site (Lake Rotokare) has been monitored since 2007, principally for cyanobacteria. The additional comprehensive flowing water benthic cyanobacteria monitoring (at nine river/stream sites) which was undertaken in the current period has been included for the second time in this state of the environment programme.

The results of the 2014-2015 survey have continued to illustrate variability in bacteriological water quality, with the highest quality achieved at the Urenui River estuary and lower Patea River sites where marked seawater intrusion is the norm (under high tide conditions), Lakes Ratapiko and Rotomanu, and the Waiwhakaiho River (at Merrilands Domain). Impacts on bacteriological water quality at some sites, particularly the lower reaches of the Waiwhakaiho River and Te Henui Stream, and less frequently at Lake Opunake, were due principally to resident wild fowl populations in the vicinity of recreational usage sites (as confirmed by inspections and more recently by DNA marker surveys).

In terms of E. coli, bacteriological water quality in the latest survey period was similar in comparison with historical surveys. The total number of samples falling within the “Alert” or “Action” categories (29% of samples) was 1% higher than the long-term average and was strongly influenced by samples at two urban sites where bird life was mainly responsible for these exceedances (12% of all sites’ samples).

No sites recorded all single samples in either the ‘Alert’ and/or the ‘Action’ mode of the MfE, 2003 guidelines while two sites (Te Henui Stream near East End beach and Waiwhakaiho River opposite Lake Rotomanu) recorded twelve single samples in either mode. Ten other sites from time to time exhibited single sample entries mainly into the

‘Alert’ mode of the 2003 guidelines at some time during the season. Six of these sites had counts which entered the ‘Action’ mode, an increase in the number and frequency of guideline exceedances in comparison with many previous seasons’ results and coincidentally these were more frequent during the extremely low flow conditions experienced in the latter half of the season.

To a certain extent these exceedances were probably a feature common to the mid and lower reaches of rivers and streams draining developed (particularly agricultural) catchments throughout New Zealand.

Birdlife contributed to exceedances from time to time particularly at two sites where on occasions recreationalists fed the birds. Notably, no exceedances of the MfE ‘Action’ guideline were found in the Waiwhakaiho River at Merrilands Domain (mid urban New Plymouth and downstream of agricultural land), whereas 11 of 13 samples exceeded this guideline near this river’s mouth. Minimal follow-up sampling was performed when deemed necessary following exceedances of the ‘Action’ limit as in most cases bacteriological quality was found to have returned to typical levels within short time frames or the causes were well established from historical data. Permanent health warning signage had been erected by the New Plymouth District Council (on the direction of Taranaki District Health Board) following past exceedances of ‘Alert’ levels [at Waitara (where vandalism of signage has been an issue)] and signage was required at the lower Waiwhakaiho River, Te Henui Stream, Manganui River, and lower Waingongoro River sites but single sample ‘Alert’ level exceedances at other sites were not necessarily signposted. Limited signage was erected at the Patea River site at Stratford despite several instances of the ‘Alert’ mode being surveyed. Although the median count for the season at this site was within the ‘Alert’ category, it was higher than all but three of the previous seasonal medians. The SFR grade for the latest five-year period deteriorated as a result of an increase in the 95% MAC category.

Temporal trends over the 1996-2015 period have been evaluated for the twelve sites that have ten years or more data (and will continue to be assessed annually). One site ( lower Waiwhakaiho River) has shown statistically significant increasing trends, while two other sites (Te Henui Stream and Oakura River) have shown strong, but not statistically significant, increasing trends in median E. coli counts. Only one site (Urenui River at the estuary) has shown a strong but not statistically significant decreasing trend in median enterococci counts. However, to date these median counts have reached ‘Alert’ or ‘Action’ levels at only three urban sites where birdlife issues have been documented. No other sites have shown statistically significant trends (positive or negative) in seasonal median E. coli counts.

Elevated enterococci to faecal coliform ratios have typified ponded sites near the stream/river mouths from time to time (and in the current season), possibly as a result of vegetative sources of enterococci and/or more prolonged survival in ponded freshwater environments, under high tidal conditions and often where saltwater penetration occurred.

Additional sampling (in accordance with the MfE, 2003 guidelines) at two principal usage sites (Lake Rotomanu and Waiwhakaiho River) coincided on a few occasions with wet weather conditions and resulted in some small increases in the overall median bacteriological numbers at both sites. One additional exceedance of the ‘Action’ limit occurred at the river site but none at the lake site as poorer river bacteriological quality followed the wet weather events.

Cyanobacteria blooms were recorded at Lake Rotokare from December 2014 with numbers peaking in mid to late summer. These numbers necessitated warning notices to avoid contact recreation on these waters during the entire recreational period. No cyanobacteria were found in Lakes Opunake and Ratapiko with a few instances of low to moderate numbers present in Lake Rotomanu.

Benthic cyanobacteria were found occasionally in most of the nine rivers and streams monitored. No sites exceeded the ‘Action’ level but three sites, on a total of 12 occasions, had over 20% coverage triggering the ‘Alert’ level. Exposed mats triggered the ‘Action’ or ‘Alert’ level at three sites on 17 occasions and detaching or detached mats accumulating on the river’s edge triggered the ‘Action’ level at one site on two occasions. Previous monitoring has focused on streambed percentage cover though information on exposed and detaching mats (above the water line) has also been collected but no sites had previously triggered the ‘Action’ or ‘Alert’ levels before the 2014-2015 sampling season. Levels of cyanobacteria were higher than the previous three sampling seasons with the long dry summer probably the main contributing factor to the high cyanobacteria levels. Exposed mats were caused by falling water levels during this long dry summer and/or the result of daily fluctuations in river flow caused by periodic releases of hydro scheme waters. Significant detaching or detached mats were often coincident with high levels of cyanobacteria present in the river. As a consequence of the presence of exposed and/or detaching mats, signage was erected at three sites advising recreational river users of the potential dangers particularly to dogs.

Timely reporting of the results of bacteriological water quality and cyanobacteria numbers/cover was undertaken by use of the Taranaki Regional Council website (www.trc.govt.nz) as well as liaison with territorial local authorities and the Health Protection Unit of Taranaki District Health Board (who also utilised its website) throughout the survey season of 2014-2015.

It is recommended that annual bacteriological monitoring of selected freshwater sites be continued (in conjunction with the coastal bathing water programme) by use of a similar sampling format over a five month (November to March inclusive) contact recreational period to provide information for trend detection purposes and for assessment of suitability for contact recreational usage. Cyanobacteria monitoring at the four lakes sites and nine stream/river sites at a lesser frequency is also recommended to continue. A further recommendation involves appropriate scheduling of the annual round of dairy wastes disposal systems and advice provided in relation to stock access to watercourses to attempt to reduce the frequency of exceedances of recreational limits particularly in catchments where historical problems from this source have been located. Another specific recommendation relates to proposed faecal source tracking investigations at the Patea River, Stratford site to provide information for future management/abatement initiatives in the upper Patea River catchment.

6. Recommendations (from ‘Freshwater contact recreational water quality at selected Taranaki sites State of the Environment Monitoring Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-01’)

As a result of the 2013-2014 summer freshwater contact recreation bacteriological survey it is recommended:

1. THAT the 2015-2016 survey be performed at sixteen regular sites continuing with the existing sampling protocols during the season extending from 1 November to 31 March (and into April, if necessary).

2. THAT the 2015-2016 survey includes an additional seven samples collected at the two principal usage sites (Lake Rotomanu and Waiwhakaiho River at the Merrilands Domain) in accordance with MfE, 2003 guidelines.

3. THAT the 2015-2016 summer survey includes cyanobacteria monitoring at the three lake sites and an additional lake (Rotokare) site and benthic cyanobacteria monitoring at nine of the river and stream sites.

4. THAT follow-up sampling (after guideline exceedances) be performed when deemed necessary by TRC staff.

5. THAT appropriate timing of the annual dairy farms inspection round be incorporated into the programme for catchments where issues relating to exceedances of contact recreational standards have been identified and advice and publicity be provided in relation to the prevention of stock access to natural water.

6. THAT appropriate DNA faecal source tracking marker investigations are undertaken into the source of high baseline E.coli counts at the Patea River site at King Edward Park, Stratford.

7. THAT reporting of results be performed as appropriate during the season, and in an Annual Report upon completion of the season’s programme.

8. THAT the appropriate statistical trend detection procedures be applied to the data and reported in the Annual Report.

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Nutrient mitigation options for the next generation Fresh Water Plan – background technical reports

Item: 5

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director—Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1553980

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present for the information of Members, four background reports that have been prepared to assist the Council and the regional community in consideration of nutrient mitigation options for future policy development in the region.

Given the importance of this work, there will be a presentation during today’s meeting. Executive summary Members have been previously advised through a series of memoranda to this Committee, of policy evaluation and development work being undertaken to guide the Council in a consideration of the effectiveness of the ‘Regional Fresh Water Plan for Taranaki’, including any need for its review. The national conversation around water quality and causes and possible interventions for degraded water quality have focused predominantly upon loss of nutrients from farming systems into receiving waters, and the consequences for ground and surface water quality. It is considered vital that Members are well-informed as to the underlying science, the state of play in the region, and the implications of the various alternatives for intervention (some of which are already being given effect to elsewhere around the country).

Accordingly, studies have been undertaken either by Council staff or by commission into 3 broadly defined options:

• continuation of the status quo • a ramping up of the policies and programmes that are already in place, but are currently largely voluntary, particularly the Council’s policies to encourage the diversion of dairy treatment pond effluent from waterways to land and of riparian management across the ring plain, by regulating to make them compulsory after a transition period; or

• the above, plus imposing land use controls that restrict farmers particularly in their stocking rates, thus effectively constraining land use and forcing it away from dairying to less intensive beef farming.

The reports are presented to today’s meeting for the information and future reference of Members.

Section 32 (revised) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires that1:- -new proposals (including new plans, plan changes, variations, full plan reviews, and new and amended regional policy statements) must be examined for their appropriateness in achieving the purpose of the RMA; -the benefits and costs, and risks of new policies and rules on the community, the economy, and the environment need to be clearly identified and assessed; -the analysis must be documented, so stakeholders and decision-makers can understand the rationale for policy choices.

Taken together, the reports find that with nutrient levels already comparatively low and reducing further in our waterways, there is simply no compelling driver for draconian interventions in nutrient management. The reports show that the imposition of nitrogen leaching caps determined and applied through the use of a model such as Overseer would fail against the RMA criteria for policies and for consents/rules in a regional plan, of relevance, certainty, clarity, necessity, effectiveness, and efficiency. A cap of 30 kg N/ha/year would cost the region in the vicinity of $60 million per year in lost profit, let alone any further flow-on impacts. A proportion of dairy farmers in Taranaki would be simply unable to continue dairy farming, as they could not manage to carry high stocking rates (as cattle urine is the main cause of nitrogen loss). The economic impacts of this have not been estimated.

Other nutrient mitigation options such as a continuation of the current voluntary adoption of good farm management practices and the continued implementation of the riparian management scheme, or alternatively moving to a policy of diversion of dairy effluent to land under all except exceptional circumstances, and the mandatory completion of riparian schemes for any remaining farm plans after a further period of Council support, are evaluated and receive much stronger endorsement against RMA criteria.

The Council has already received for distribution, the ‘Draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki’. The draft policies and methods of implementation set out in the draft Plan are consistent with the findings and assessments presented in the reports discussed herein, and are robustly supported by their findings.The reports are presented to today’s meeting for the information and future reference of Members. No further decisions on a preferred option or suite of options are required at today’s meeting.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum ‘Nutrient mitigation options for the next generation Fresh Water Plan- background technical reports’, and the accompanying reports Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki (Taranaki Regional Council), Dairy Farm Practices and

1 As stated in A Guide to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, Ministry for the Environment/Ministry for Primary Industries, August 2015.

Management Report (Dairy NZ), Supplementary Report- Nutrient Management Tools/Models (CHC Consultants), and Assessment of the agricultural economic impacts of nutrient management policies in Taranaki (LWP) 2. notes the findings of each report 3. notes that the findings will be incorporated into the analysis to be prepared by the Council in accordance with Section 32 of the RMA, examining any proposals for new policies and rules in respect of fresh water management to determine their appropriateness in achieving the purposes of the RMA and their benefits, costs, and risks for the community, the economy, and the environment. Background As part of the review of the Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki (RFWP), the Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) is examining options for maintaining and enhancing water quality through improved nutrient management on land where dairy farming occurs. This examination needs to be to a level that satisfies the recently amended Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

Assisted by the Council, Taranaki has a very successful voluntary Riparian Management Programme which has targeted (though not exclusively), dairy farmers on the Taranaki ring plain and coastal terraces. The aim of the riparian programme is to mitigate effects of intensive land use on freshwater quality. The uptake of the programme is very successful with almost all (99.5%) dairy farmers signed up to a plan. As at 30 June 2014, 80% of plan holders had completed the designated fencing and 65% of plan holders had completed the designated planting. Over recent years the Council has also been encouraging dairy farmers to dispose of farm dairy effluent to land, rather than treated wastewater to freshwater, and to adopt other good management practices, such as the use of feed pads and nutrient budgeting.

The results of state of the environment monitoring for Taranaki indicate that freshwater quality is being maintained and, against some measures, is improving. N or P concentrations in streams are not increasing, nor leading to significant adverse environment effects, nor to deteriorating trends in stream health or aesthetics.

The Taranaki situation presents as remarkably and substantially different to elsewhere. This is due to Taranaki’s hydrological system, present water quality state and trends, recent and future pressures from land use changes, and the success of existing and previous management interventions. The ‘problem definition’ in respect of nutrients is likewise very different, as too the appropriateness of various ‘solutions’.

Nutrient caps (or multiple variations on the concept of nutrient caps) have been adopted in recent second generation freshwater plans elsewhere. Most dairying regions either have, or are moving towards this direction. Overseer, an on-farm nutrient input and export model, is at the heart of all regional regulatory approaches, either adopted or under consideration. The Council considers that if regulatory interventions are to be ramped up dramatically whereby use is to be made of tools such as models within a regulatory management framework, then at the very least there must be a clear, significant, and probably worsening environmental issue. The intervention tool must be not only proven to be highly relevant but also highly effective and risk-free, and its use must have a high degree of credibility and community acceptance. Otherwise the integrity of the regulatory regime is likely to be undermined. Both costs and benefits should be able to be reliably quantified with considerable confidence.

Given the above, the Council determined to pursue a project that would explore and develop a costs and benefits analysis (as per s.32 of the RMA) that could be built on four focus areas: • Dairy farm practices and management– assessment of the three policy options against the current dairy farm practices and management to identify what the economic costs or benefits might be to farmers and the region (Dairy NZ);

• Nutrient management tools/models– a number of nutrient management tools/models are available, and the difficulties, risks, and virtues of trying to use a nutrient management tool such as Overseer in a regulatory framework need to be clarified. There is a need to recognise the purpose and intent of these tools and the implications (including economic costs and benefits) of using these tools in a regulatory setting (CHC Ltd with assistance from Ravensdown and NIWA);

• Surface water and groundwater quality – a clear position statement outlining the current surface water and groundwater resources of the Taranaki Region to provide the context to assess the three policy options against the Council’s water quality monitoring data, and to assess the costs and benefits in water quality terms of the three nutrient management options being considered to inform the economic assessment (TRC);

• Agricultural economics – the economic assessment should take the findings of the above focus areas and where practicable quantify the economic costs and benefits in order to meet the requirements of s.32 (2)(b) (LWP Ltd).

Discussion Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki By reviewing the current state of the region’s streams, and the direction of travel of the measures of state and quality, and the nature of drivers and pressures that may arise in the future, this report provides the context within which Members and the regional community can evaluate any justification for water quality management interventions that might be introduced within any new RFWP.

With regard to the current state of Taranaki’s surface waters, this review shows that the emphasis upon using ecological measures to assess stream health that is at the heart of monitoring practice in Taranaki is also consistent with current monitoring innovation internationally. The monitoring programmes implemented by the Taranaki Regional Council have been repeatedly subject to independent review and audit, and found to be fit for purpose.

The state of Taranaki’s streams and rivers is already very good by assessment against any national or international guidelines and statutory requirements. There is no statutory, environmental, or value driver that justifies interventions that would carry a high cost to the region or to a sector within the region.

With regard to the current trends in Taranaki’s surface waters, this review shows that clear improvements are already occurring across the region in most measures of water quality. Therefore, urgent and radical measures to halt and reverse regional trends are not required; instead, it is a matter of considering what new measures (if any) are appropriate to sustain and further foster the current direction of travel.

With regard to drivers of in-stream health and water quality, this review notes that first of all it is important for the regional community to be aware that (i) nitrogen is not the key

determinant of in-stream ecology (periphyton and macrophytes) in Taranaki streams in any case. Rather, phosphorus is recognised as the limiting nutrient- that is, the extent of periphyton growth, including any excessive growth, will be determined by the availability of phosphorus. Thus, measures that focus on reducing nitrogen inputs would be mis-placed, and conversely, measures that reduce phosphate loadings would have much more direct benefit; (ii) secondly, excessive nutrients (if indeed they were found to be present) do not of themselves actually lead to adverse environmental consequences. The relationship between nutrients within a waterway and the ecological health of that waterway is neither linear nor straightforward. An independent national study (NIWA) found that the Taranaki region is essentially the least susceptible region in New Zealand for excessive periphyton to occur. This prognosis is borne out by the actual observations of periphyton made during monitoring at critical times. Justification for action is lacking.

In summary, there is no driver for constraining nutrient applications to farmland, or for forcing farmers to reduce stocking intensity and thus achieve lower rates of urine deposition onto land. On the other hand, riparian management is shown to have multiple benefits for the aquatic environment:

• Reduced loadings not only of nutrients, but of sediment (found by USEPA to be more critical as a pressure on water quality than nutrients are), organic content, and bacteria; • Enriched in-stream and stream-bank habitat, thus supporting more diverse and abundant communities; • Shading that reduces light and lowers in-stream temperature; • Greater food supply via leaf litter and woody debris; • Reduced run-off flow velocities.

These benefits are already apparent in Taranaki through the implementation of the riparian programme to date. The diversion of treated dairy shed effluent from water under all but the most exceptional of circumstances will further reduce current nutrient loadings within the region. As with riparian management, this action has benefits not only for reduction of nutrient loadings, but also for reduced turbidity, suspended solids, organic loadings, and bacteriological impacts. A continuation and acceleration of this programme, in association with measures to reduce effluent discharges from farm pond system, will have demonstrable and widespread benefits.

2 Water quality in New Zealand: Land use and nutrient pollution, PCE November 2013

Dairy Farm Practices and Management Report (Dairy NZ)

The purpose of this report is to provide an opinion on the three policy options identified within the Executive summary above, with regard to how each option might impinge upon current farming practice (especially dairying). The report assesses farm style and practice by sub-region and location.

In relation to the first two policy options, this report finds that:

• If the rate of fencing experienced in the past two years continues, fencing of waterways will be completed by 2020; • The past two years planting rate of 300km per year will need to double to achieve 90% waterway riparian planting completion within the same timeframe; • A long payback period would be required if the cost of irrigator systems (including storage and spreading) is weighed up against the nutrient benefit of effluent to the farmer, although arguably nutrient savings would approximate the interest costs on capital. It should not be assumed that land application is a zero cost or economically advantageous for dairy farmers; • About three-quarters of dairy farms probably have sufficient pond capacity in their existing effluent treatment systems to switch directly to a ‘store and irrigate to land when suitable’ system without increasing storage requirements. The remaining farms are predominantly on high-risk soils (ie moderate to steep contours) or experience very high rainfall or currently have only small sumps prior to land spreading; and therefore these farms need extra capacity to hold larger volumes over longer periods, and/or increase the size or nature of their irrigation systems (eg low rate application under soil moisture deficit conditions only);. • A policy of discharge of farm dairy effluent to land only, other than in exceptional circumstances, is workable and can be implemented in the majority of (but not all) cases with moderate ease and minimal cost by utilising existing pond storage systems; • However, those farms with high rainfall and a network of streams on the property, and or high risk soils, would struggle to implement a solely land based effluent irrigation system, thus incurring significant capital expense (about 11% of farms); and in some cases would never be able to meet the requirements of any policy of land-only application (another 3%); • Therefore a blanket universal discharge to land policy is not practically workable. The consequences in practice, if no alternative is provided for, would be that some farmers are forced out of dairying on their land because of their inability to dispose of effluent to land without adverse effects (ie over-saturation of land and inevitable runoff).

In relation to the third policy option, that of imposing a cap on the amount of nitrogen that would be allowed to be lost to infiltration, the study rejected such a cap for a number of reasons:

• Particularly because farmers would feel obliged to manage their farms according to whatever the latest version of Overseer propounds, instead of according to good management practices, a sound understanding of their land and landscape, and the day to day changes and demands of farming activity; • A nutrient limit on land use would be inequitable, carry high implementation and high compliance costs, and be unable to achieve the desired outcomes on a sub-regional or regional basis, because of variation in soil characteristics, topography, hydrology, and weather patterns, from farm to farm. Many of the factors driving a relatively high rate of

nutrient loss (as modelled within Overseer) are outside a farmer’s control on a day to day basis; • There are a relatively large number (40%+/-) of farms which simply would be unable to achieve a 30kgN/ha/year Overseer limit. The consequences of such a limit in practice would be farmers forced off their land and loss of land productivity; • Even for those farms able to meet a 30kgN/ha/year cap, in some cases the extent of changes and attendant costs to existing farm practices and farm productivity may mean costs are substantial and benefits negligible; • Not all farmland contributes N loss at an equal rate, and not all farmland within a catchment contributes equally to the overall effects within a river. A blanket limit unnecessarily constraints productivity across much of a catchment, without commensurate environmental gain; • There is a considerable financial cost to the industry of meeting a N cap of 30kgN/ha/year: the study finds that the total cost to Taranaki dairy farmers can be estimated at more than $52 million per annum. This is incurred as a loss of operating profit, primarily through increased operating expenditure. There would also be a likely increase in demand for supplementary feed; this increased demand would be likely to increase the cost; this has not been taken into account. • Averaged across Taranaki’s dairy farms, each farm would lose over $30,000 per year; but some farms would be far more heavily impacted than others. In simple terms, the greater the average annual rainfall, the harder it would be for a farm to demonstrate compliance with an Overseer-mediated limit upon nitrogen loss. • This in turn will lead to perceptions of inequity and unfairness.

The report compares Taranaki with the rest of the country and finds Taranaki’s dairy farming practices are different. In general, the region is wetter (much of the region’s farmland experiences more than 2000 mm per year), farms are smaller, there is less capital investment and infrastructure is older. It should be noted that this analysis of mitigation options is for the Taranaki region only. It should not be taken as having application in part or whole to any other region or to the content and implementation of any regional plan elsewhere.

Supplementary Report- Nutrient Management Tools/Models

The purpose of this Supplementary Report – Nutrient Management Tools/Models is to provide background information on and an evaluation of current modelling tools used in dairy farm nutrient management, and the applicability of these tools in a regulatory setting. The report has been prepared in order to assist the Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) in preparing an Economic Costs & Benefits Report. It was prepared by CHC Consultants, with input from Ravensdown (on behalf of the owners of Overseer) and from NIWA.

The scope of the Supplementary Report – Nutrient Management Tools/Models was to: • broadly describe the tools/models (including OVERSEER®) available to support nutrient management on dairy farms; • identify issues associated with the use of these tools/models in a regulatory setting; • assess the three policy options put forward by the Council, to determine which option best delivers from a nutrient management tools/models perspective; • provide an opinion on the three policy options from a nutrient management tools/models perspective, and to recommend a preferred option; • address any other matters considered relevant.

The report has an executive summary (attached) and seven subsequent sections:- -Section 2 provides an introduction and outlines the purpose of this Supplementary Report – Nutrient Management Tools/Models; provides background to the preparation of the report; defines the scope of the report; and outlines the structure of the report; -Section 3 defines the issues facing dairy farm activities on water quality. In particular this section looks at diffuse source discharges from dairy farms; the effects of these discharges; management approaches adopted; and how compliance can be determined; -Section 4 provides an overview of the nutrient management tools/models currently used manage dairy farm nutrient losses. The tools/models looked at are Overseer, CLUES, and LUC. For each tool/model there is a description of what it is; what it does; limitations; and how it is updated; -Section 5 overviews how the tools/models have been used in a regulatory setting in other regions, and the regulatory approaches using tools/models; -Section 6 provides an overview of the issues associated with using tools/models in a regulatory setting. Each of the tools/models is discussed, and the overall implications are summarised; -Section 7 assesses the applicability of the tools/models to the Taranaki Region and overviews the three policy options being assessed; identifies assessment criteria; undertakes an assessment of the potential costs/benefits (from a nutrient management perspective) within a specific Taranaki context, and recommends a preferred option; and -Section 8 provides a summary of the key findings of the assessments, and provides a conclusion on the costs and benefits from a nutrient management perspective of the preferred option.

The report notes that in Taranaki, the stocking rate per ha has increased only 4% in the decade 2002-2012. In the Taranaki context, the largest source of nitrogen is urine from livestock (including discharges from dairy effluent pond treatment systems) while the largest sources of phosphorus are from: • sediment (e.g. soil erosion from the mountain and eastern hill country); • the leaching of soluble P from soils with high Olsen P levels; • surface runoff (including pasture runoff of fine clay with P attached; fertilisers); • stock access to river/stream banks (as a source of bound P); and • discharges from dairy effluent pond treatment systems.

The options for controlling on-farm nutrient losses include the adoption of good management practices (for effluent, fertiliser management, feed conversion etc), adaptive management (nutrient budgeting, farm environment plans), and the regulation of land use (nutrient discharge caps). To assist with a number of these approaches, tools and models have been developed as part of ensuring good management practices are been adopted, and adaptive management approaches are being effective. These tools and models include Overseer which is primarily used to establish and monitor nutrient budgets; CLUES which is a GIS based modelling system which assesses the effects of land use change on water quality and socio-economic indicators; and the use of LUC (Land Use Classification).

The study goes on to review the strengths and limitations of the models at length. It reviews their use elsewhere within regulatory frameworks. It then goes on to highlight the issues that arise if used in this way. Key points include:-

• From the outset it should be recognised that Overseer was never designed or intended to be used as a regulatory tool. Rather, Overseer was designed and intended to support

decision making on managing nutrient use and losses at a farm level. But inherently the regulatory setting requires certainty and accuracy to ensure environmental effects are identified and assessed and justified. Just as there is an onus on the resource user to demonstrate or prove what the effects of their activities will be, the regulatory authority has to be able to demonstrate or prove where non-compliance with plan provisions or resource consent conditions has occurred, and what the consequences of this are, with certainty and accuracy (‘beyond reasonable doubt’). A regulatory regime that is based on a whole of catchment approach must of necessity take a starting point of regarding all farms as having an equal contribution and having to meet the same allocation imposition if target water quality is to be attained, when this does not reflect reality. • Overseer is being seen as the tool/model to ascertain and set a nutrient loss limit/number, rather than a mechanism to see whether nutrient management practices adopted are achieving or could achieve the overall objectives sought. The use of Overseer by itself as a tool to set limits in receiving waters is outside the scope of the purpose and use of the model. • Overseer does not enable a farmer to see any connection between day to day management choices, and long term environmental outcomes. • Any link between cumulative nutrient losses (as modelled by Overseer) and instream standards/guidelines/targets is missing. It might in theory be possible to look for relationships between cumulative Overseer N and P losses in a catchment, and ecosystem health measures like MCI score and/or algal biomass/cover, but there is also a need to consider many other confounding and important factors, and such an approach would be very demanding and intensive. In a region like Taranaki’s, with over 230 catchments, the complexity of the task would be multiplied. For example, environmental monitoring has already demonstrated no discernible connection between trends in nutrients and trends in ecological health in the region’s waterways. The authors of the report believe there are not yet strong scientific links between long term average nutrient losses from farms (Overseer) or nutrient fluxes in streams (CLUES), and periphyton biomass or MCI index. Those links are the subject of ongoing research which is not yet mature. This also leads to a more immediate question: is there anywhere in Taranaki that such an effort could be justified? • Overseer N loss estimates have been validated against farmlet system N losses but most of these studies occur where annual average rainfall is no greater than 1200mm. The model extrapolates its algorithms to higher rainfall based on first principles and the known interactions between rainfall and soil properties. Many of the catchments in the Taranaki ring plain, which have their source in the Egmont National Park, have an annual rainfall of between 1100mm to 7178mm (at 900m above sea level). These rates of precipitation are much higher than those at which Overseer has been validitated.

The report finds that councils are using tools/models (such as Overseer and LUC) in their plans and decision making to achieve environmental outcomes based on incomplete or inadequate information. Fundamental gaps in the science and ecosystem management thinking that need to be addressed are identified.

The report notes that in contrast to much of the rest of New Zealand, and in particular those areas of New Zealand facing pressure from land use change to intensive farming, rainfall in Taranaki is relatively consistent year round and more significantly is characterised by heavier rainfall events regularly throughout the year. Because of the pattern of repeated flushings at regular intervals, the annual loading of nutrients is not an issue as temporal accumulation does not occur. Rather, deteriorations in instream ecology occur only at very limited times for limited durations and only in particular circumstances. This in turn means

that use of models that deal in annual average scenarios lack any relevance to effective management of water quality in the region.

Further, the region is characterised by a very large number of very small catchments with very short retention periods. The sheer number of catchments, let alone the diversity of on- farm and inter-farm variables within any single catchment (climate, hydrology, soil characteristics, on-farm practices etc.) which mean high individual variability in the degree of any contribution to water quality on a farm by farm basis, preclude any efficient means of collectively relating each individual farm’s activity to desired water quality outcomes via modelling. The sheer scale of trying to calibrate Overseer on a catchment by catchment basis across the region precludes such an approach in practical terms, even if nutrient restriction was to be deemed necessary.

The report concludes that the use of modelling tools within the Taranaki context does not meet statutory criteria and expectations for consents/rules in a regional plan, of relevance, certainty, clarity, necessity, effectiveness, and efficiency.

The report finds that the implications of the above issues include: • that the Taranaki Regional Council should not use tools/models (such as Overseer and LUC) with regulatory force in their plans and decision making to endeavour to achieve environmental outcomes because of the reality of incomplete or inadequate input information (information gaps that are potentially very significant in terms of model suitability within a regulatory setting); • where there are gaps in the science or the tools/modelling, tools/models not ‘fit for purpose’ should not be adapted or utilised in the interim; and • gaps in science/management need to be addressed, if indeed they can be, before tools/models will provide the certainty and outcomes required.

Of the three policy options being assessed by Council to address nutrient management issues in the Taranaki Region, Option 3 (nutrient cap plus other on-farm mitigation) is the least likely to satisfy the RMA assessment criteria from a nutrient management perspective, and its risks are too high..

Assessment of the agricultural economic impacts of nutrient management policies in Taranaki

This study was conducted by LWP Ltd for the Taranaki Regional Council. It drew on the three other technical reports (Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki, An assessment of dairy farm practices and management, and Nutrient management tools/models and practices) to provide an assessment of the agricultural economics that would be associated with the policy options under consideration. The report:-

• broadly describes the key agricultural economic elements and financial modelling as they relate to nutrient management on dairy farms; • reviews the findings of the other three focus areas and uses these findings to inform the assessment of agricultural economic aspects of nutrient management on dairy farms; • assesses the three policy options under consideration and determines the economic costs and benefits of the options (in accordance with the recently amended s.32 of the RMA), with emphasis primarily (but not exclusively) on the on-farm economic consequences;

• provides an opinion on the three policy options from a primarily on-farm agricultural economics perspective; • recommends a preferred option; and • addresses various other matters considered relevant for the Agricultural Economics Report.

The report notes that in recent years dairy cattle numbers have remained relatively static in Taranaki and the area of land dedicated to dairying has reduced slightly. Production intensity (milk solids per hectare) has steadily increased. Interestingly, variations in the area of land dedicated to dairying did not show a strong correlation with dairy prices. The study shows that the increases in dairy land area in Taranaki predicted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (refer previous study) show no signs of actually occurring.

The Council’s ‘Option 3’ would if implemented see the imposition of caps for nitrogen application, which will alter the profitability of dairy farming for those on higher rainfall and more intensive systems. The work from DairyNZ estimates that 27% of properties already meet the 48 and 30 kgN/ha caps on modelled N loss, 53% would meet the 48kgN/ha cap but not the 30kgN/ha, and 20% do not meet either cap (i.e. according to Overseer they already leach more than 48kgN/ha/year). That is, 73% of dairy farms in Taranaki currently would not meet a 30kgN/ha threshold; 80% of farms would be able to meet a 48kgN/ha loss limit. All dairy farms would be able to meet a 48kgN/ha/year loss cap with some cost to the farm profitability, but 40% of farm properties in Taranaki would not able to meet a 30kgN/ha cap without at least significant changes to the farm system and major impacts on farm profitability (and in some cases farms would have to be abandoned). Using this assessment, the study investigates the overall potential economic impacts, allowing for increased production intensity where farms are currently below the possible caps, and reducing production where farms are already above the loss caps. A standard potential cost of mitigation was assumed for farms that are currently unable to meet the respective nitrogen loss caps, regardless of whether in some cases this would be simply unattainable and the farm would have to be abandoned for dairying. The economic costs of abandonment have not been included in the study. The study takes into account the costs associated with effluent management and riparian management according to the various options. It also encapsulates administrative costs arising from increased regulation and monitoring by the Council, extending to farmers being required to prepare and submit farm plans, so that they can demonstrate compliance with nitrogen loss caps if imposed, and auditing (whether external or by the Council). However, the study notes that flow on impacts from all the above have not been considered (eg implications for support industries and services). In some respects these would be positive in the short term because some measures (e.g. dairy effluent requirements) would require capital expenditure that would be funded by equity or debt and increase activity in the region. However a number of other impacts would be negative, caused by increased debt or lower equity, reduced profitability, and limitations on flexibility, which would cause impacts to farm suppliers, household income and the wider community. These costs have been considered out of scope, and greater detail would be required in terms of revenue and expenditure impacts before they were able to be calculated. Results: over a modelled period of 25 years:-

• Option 1, which equates to the current situation in Taranaki, incurs costs for the agricultural sector of approximately $17 million in NPV(8%) terms. This is approximately $1.5 million per annum for the period of the analysis, and represents the costs of completing the riparian fencing and planting programme to 90% coverage.

• Option 2 incurs additional costs for riparian planting and dairy effluent management. The riparian planting costs increase both in absolute terms (from $40 to $54 million in aggregate expenditure) and also in NPV(8%) terms because of the earlier implementation (2020) of the policy in Option 2. This increases the annual costs over the first 5 years from $1.5 million per annum to $9.1 million per annum, and the NPV(8%) cost from $17 million to $42 million. Region-wide diversion of dairy effluent would impose additional costs [at NPV(8%)] of $64 million, the majority of which is the cost of constructing and lining ponds, and installing irrigation systems for disposal to land. These costs are partially offset by the nutrient benefits associated with the effluent, which is equal to $48 million NPV(8%). The total cost of this option over the 25 years is $58 million NPV, which is $41 million more than Option 1.

• Option 3 with a cap at 30kgN loss/ha/year will have costs that are more than an order of magnitude greater than Options 1 and 2, with total costs of $1010 million NPV(8%). The majority of this is mitigation cost for dairy properties ($52 million per annum over the period of analysis), but reducing the potential for intensification and development will also impose costs in the order of $360 million NPV.

• Option 3 with the cap at 48kgN/ha will have lower cost than the 30kgN/ha cap, but these will still be significant at $340 million NPV(8%) total. Again the majority of this is costs from mitigating to the 48kgN/ha cap for high emitting properties, which is a cost of ~$16 million per annum over the period of the analysis. There are no assumed impacts on development in this scenario, but the costs associated with restrictions on intensification are still a significant contributor to the total cost at $96 million NPV(8%). This option has a cost that is $326(8%) million NPV greater than Option 1. The report concludes that ‘The N caps in particular will impose significant cost on the dairy and dairy support sectors, with the majority of this borne by the dairy operations. The dairy effluent and riparian protection requirements will also impose costs, but these costs are significantly smaller. Therefore Options 1 and 2 are strongly preferred from an agricultural economics perspective…Given the size of costs associated with the N caps and the lower priority as a problem in the region, their imposition would impose a range of costs on the farming community that would require very strong justification that is not apparent in the report on water quality in the region. However a decision on the relative trade-off between costs and environmental gains remains a political decision and not one that is amenable to quantitative analysis. (Section 4 of the report) Conclusions Taken together, the reports find that with nutrient levels already comparatively low and reducing further in our waterways, there is simply no compelling driver for draconian interventions in nutrient management. The reports show that the imposition of nitrogen leaching caps determined and applied through the use of a model such as Overseer would fail against the RMA criteria for policies and for consents/rules in a regional plan, of relevance, certainty, clarity, necessity, effectiveness, and efficiency. A cap of 30 kg N/ha/year would cost the region in the vicinity of $60 million per year in lost profit, let alone any further flow-on impacts. A proportion of dairy farmers in Taranaki would be simply unable to continue dairy farming. The economic impacts of this have not been estimated.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act. Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. Policy considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Biosecurity Act 1993. Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council. Attachments – four separate reports Document 1459333: Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki, Regional Council Technical report 2014-report No 103 (Executive summary attached, full document provided separately) Document 1511391: Dairy Farm Practices and Management Report, DairyNZ (Executive summary attached, full document provided separately) Document 1501001: Supplementary Report- Nutrient Management Tools/Models, CHC Consultants (Executive summary attached, full document provided separately) Document 1560309: Assessment of the agricultural economic impacts of nutrient management policies in Taranaki, LWP Ltd (Executive summary attached, full document provided separately)

Document 1459333 Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki Regional Council Technical report 2014-report No 103

Executive summary

Under Section 65 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), a regional council may prepare a regional plan to assist it to deliver any of the functions of a regional council described in Section 30 of the RMA. Under Section 67, a regional plan may state [(2)(a)] the issues that the plan seeks to address; and…(c) the principal reasons for adopting the policies and methods; and (d) the environmental results expected from the policies and methods;…

A freshwater plan (the Regional Fresh Water Plan for Taranaki, or RFWP) has been in effect in Taranaki since October 2001. The Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) is currently undertaking a statutory review of the RFWP. This review is being undertaken against a background of a national conversation around water quality (including its state and trends in its state) in New Zealand. This conversation has focused primarily on perceptions of deteriorating water quality due to increases in concentrations of nitrogen and to a lesser extent of bacteriological degradation, and of the primary solution being regulatory intervention in land use (particularly targeting intensive pastoral farming).

The Council considers it critical that in regard to the review of the RFWP, the regional community is well-informed as to the state and nature of and trends in the quality of surface water in Taranaki, and understands the significant variations in surface water from region to region (and hence the scale and significance of water quality issues). This review sets out information on the state of our streams and rivers, including an evaluation of suitability for use in the light of various guidelines and statutory standards; it provides information on trends in the various parameters that are used to measure aspects of water quality and suitability for use (values); and it discusses the present and anticipated future drivers of in-stream health including the likely effects of proposed interventions/ methods of implementation of policies for enhancing water quality.

This information then provides the context within which to evaluate any justification for measures that could be introduced within the new RFWP.

The information this review draws upon is taken from the Council’s ‘state of the environment’ (SEM) programmes, which have been in place for 18 years and have been delivered (including data interpretation) according to recognised ‘good practice’ techniques and with external review. Sites are variously assessed using measures of ecological health, physicochemical state, suitability for recreational use (bacteriology), and periphyton cover. This review also incorporates the date from 3 sites monitored for physicochemical measurements by the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Sciences (NIWA) for a longer period. One of the NIWA sites is also monitored independently by the Council, for mutual quality control purposes.

Because this review is being implemented within the context of the Council’s review of the current RFWP, trend analysis discussed herein has encompassed the more recent of the SEM water quality data, as this period is the more relevant to consideration of the effectiveness of current policies and their implementation.

Any new policy intervention should be well-grounded in evidence and science that informs the understanding of the current situation and explores the justification for (‘is a change in policy actually needed? On what basis is that statement made?’) and the likely or unlikely effectiveness (‘will it achieve the desired outcome in full or only in part’) and efficiency (‘what is the cost of the proposed intervention against the benefit?’) of each potential intervention. The scientific and evidential basis should reflect the Taranaki context (while noting that there may also be national obligations that must be honoured eg National Policy Statements or National Environmental Standards, under the Resource Management Act 1991). The latest and best relevant information should be brought to bear, and incorporated constructively into the new policy.

The values to be given effect to through any accomplishment, improvement, or progress to be gained through any new policy should reflect those held by the Taranaki community.

The policy should be framed in a way that facilitates innovative and holistic solutions (‘best net environmental outcomes?’) rather than be siloed from other programmes and instruments.

Policy should build on what is already happening regionally (not necessarily what is happening elsewhere) and on what is needed or justified regionally ( not necessarily on what has been found to be necessary elsewhere).

With regard to the current state of Taranaki’s surface waters, this review shows that the state of Taranaki’s streams and rivers is already very good by assessment against guidelines and statutory requirements. When compared with the National Objectives Framework (NOF) established through the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FW), by far the greatest number of attribute measurements at each site already fall into the ‘A’ NOF category, with most of the remainder falling into a ‘B’ category. There is a single ‘C’ result and no ‘D’ result: that is, there is no attribute at any site that falls below the compulsory bottom lines established within the NOF.

Before the NOF was released, the Council had in preparation for the review of its RFWP commissioned NIWA to develop regionally appropriate guidelines for water quality to provide for a range of potential uses of surface water. These guidelines cover a greater number of parameters/attributes than does the NOF. As with the NOF criteria, results for almost all attributes at almost all sites already fully satisfy these criteria. In a few isolated cases the majority of but not every result already meet the criteria; there is one site where only a minority of results currently meet the stock drinking water/ human secondary recreational use guideline; and DRP is higher than desired at some sites. In this latter instance it should be noted that monitoring of periphyton (algae layers on the stream bed) in the region demonstrates that national guidelines for periphyton are satisfied everywhere even under the most extreme conditions, except on rare occasion at one or two sites. That is, even when DRP levels are higher than guideline values this is not leading to adverse environmental outcomes within the region.

Other than at three freshwater bathing sites where environmental forensic investigations using DNA have identified seagulls, pukekos, and ducks as major sources of faecal contamination, more than 99% of freshwater samples collected each summer in the Council’s recreational surveys meet the national bathing guideline.

The Council makes extensive use of the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) as a measure of the health of in-stream ecology. Macroinvertebrate communities (tiny animals

including insects, crustaceans, molluscs, worms, and leeches) are assessed for their presence and abundance, and this data is transformed into a quantitative index. There are no national guidelines for MCIs, as values change significantly down a catchment as stream morphology, hydrology, and meteorology change with altitude and distance from source. The Council makes use of comparisons of MCI values at any point in any catchment, with calculated ‘expected values’ based on reference sites of a similar nature across the region. This work shows that there are a few, spatially limited, areas in the region where MCI values are lower than those that could be expected (and hence there is opportunity for targeted interventions to achieve enhancements in in-stream health), but that otherwise MCI values across the region are generally already in the appropriate range.

In summary, this review shows that the existing water quality in Taranaki is already very high when evaluated against guidelines/ standards relating to various purposes for which water could be utilised.

In summary, this review shows that the emphasis upon using ecological measures to assess stream health that is at the heart of monitoring practice in Taranaki is consistent with current monitoring innovation internationally. The monitoring programmes implemented by the Taranaki Regional Council have been repeatedly subject to independent review and audit, and found to be fit for purpose.

The existing water quality in Taranaki is found to already be very high when evaluated against guidelines and standards (whether national and international) relating to various values and purposes for which water could be utilised. The accomplishments and improvements already established within the region have created a good framework for modification by any further policy extension.

There is thus no statutory, environmental, or value driver that justifies interventions that would carry a high cost to the region or to a sector within the region. Any new policy should be designed to enhance and build on what is already a good picture.

With regard to the current trends in Taranaki’s surface waters, this review shows that clear improvements are occurring across the region in most measures of water quality. Ecological health is widely regarded by water management agencies as the primary measure of freshwater quality, using indices based on macroinvertebrate communities (see above). Data from 57 key sites shows that in the most recent surveys reported, 20 recorded their best-ever macroinvertebrate score. Rigorous statistical analysis shows that 21 sites are demonstrating an ‘almost certain’ positive trend and 9 further sites are demonstrating a ‘very likely’ positive trend. No sites are demonstrating evidence of deterioration at an equivalent statistical level.

Assessments of trends in periphyton cover show an improvement in measures of mat coverage and strand coverage that is statistically meaningful at three (mats) or seven (strands) sites, respectively, and otherwise no evidence of change in the two measures at all remaining sites.

Assessment of trends in physicochemical parameters shows that in recent years, almost universally results are demonstrating an almost certain improvement, a very likely improvement, or at the very least no evidence of a change. Only one site (out of 13) shows deterioration in some of its measures. Notably, a number of sites are now showing reductions (improvements) in the concentrations of nutrients (the various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) present in the water column. Trend analyses across both long term (19 years) and recent (the last 7 years) records show that total nitrogen is significantly reducing at a majority

of the sites monitored and has not increased and is not increasing at any site. Across all 13 sites, 12 of the measurements of one or other of the various forms of nitrogen (ammonia, total nitrogen, and nitrate) are showing significant recent improvement, and only one measurement (of ammonia in the upper Waingongoro) that is showing a recent deterioration.

In summary, this review shows that the region is not facing a crisis of deteriorating water quality. Indicators of in-stream ecological health and of pressures upon water quality are moving in the desired direction. As an overall trend, water quality is currently being enhanced in the region (15% of measurements showing significant improvement, 80% showing no evidence of a trend, and 5 % showing a deterioration, over the last 7 years). Therefore, measures to halt and reverse regional trends are not required; instead, it is a matter of considering what new measures (if any) are appropriate to further foster the current direction of travel.

With regard to drivers of in-stream health and water quality, this review notes that first of all it is important for the regional community to be aware that (i) nitrogen is not the key determinant of in-stream ecology (periphyton and macrophytes) in Taranaki streams in any case. Rather, phosphorus is recognised as the limiting nutrient- that is, the extent of periphyton growth, including any excessive growth, will be determined by the availability of phosphorus. Thus, measures that focus on reducing nitrogen inputs would be mis-placed, and conversely, measures that reduce phosphate loadings would have much more direct benefit; (ii) secondly, excessive nutrients (if indeed they were to be present) do not of themselves actually lead to adverse environmental consequences. The relationship between nutrients within a waterway and the ecological health of that waterway is neither linear nor straightforward. A number of other environmental factors must also simultaneously be present before periphyton proliferate. In particular, the duration of low, warm, and slow flows in the presence of strong sunlight is a controlling factor. An independent national study found that the Taranaki region is essentially the least susceptible region in New Zealand for excessive periphyton to occur, because of the frequency of rainfall events even during summer (this is not about total rainfall, but the return interval between the rainfall events that result in flushing effects in rivers). This prognosis is borne out by the actual observations of periphyton made during monitoring at critical times (see above).

The Council is proposing two significant new measures for introduction in the next RFWP: the region-wide diversion of dairy shed effluent from discharge to water, to discharge to land as a general rule, and the completion of the current riparian exclusion and planting programmes across the region’s ring plain. Currently about half the region’s dairy farms discharge to water, although the proportion is gradually reducing; the Council considers that this can be accelerated and discharge to land made the regulatory rule. This would effectively eliminate one of the two major sources of organic, bacteriological, and nutrient loadings to Taranaki’s waterways.

The second measure would see elimination of overland flow (runoff) from diffuse sources of contamination, such as eroding soil, fertiliser, and animal wastes, on pastoral land, and the consequences of animals entering or damaging the banks of streams (soil erosion and the direct deposition of animal wastes). Because phosphate binds to soil, prevention of soil loss and soil transport into streams has a major added benefit of reduced phosphate transport. Overseas studies reviewed within this report indicate that riparian control can reduce sediment, phosphate, and bacteriological loadings from diffuse pollution runoff by up to 80%. It is recognised that riparian plantings are less effective at reducing nitrogen transport into streams (because nitrogen is generally transported in dissolved form via groundwater rather

than surface runoff), but this qualification needs to be placed within the context that in-stream nitrogen concentrations are already reducing, the diversion of dairy shed effluent will of itself significantly further reduce nitrogen loadings on waterways, and nitrogen is of less significance environmentally in Taranaki than in some other regions. The Council will continue to encourage (rather than require) the adoption of other good farming practices such as the use of balanced nutrient budgets based on both nutrient modelling and also on soil/pasture sampling, the avoidance of heavy stocking of saturated pastures near streams, maintaining soil nutrient levels at optimal instead of at excessive concentrations, and matching fertiliser application to times and degree of greatest demand (precision fertilisation). Given the scale of the anticipated benefits of the proposed measures, it is difficult to see how harsher or more punitive regulatory measures to reduce nutrient loadings can be justified against incremental gains that might be made..

In terms of future trends within the dairying industry, much has been made of intensification of land use (conversion to dairying or to higher stocking rates on existing pasture) within the context of the conversation around national water quality. This review notes an investigation of the issue by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE). As discussed in more detail further in this review, the PCE found that it was the conversion of land previously used for purposes such as extensive agriculture or forestry, to intensive dairying (usually involving irrigation) that was the root driver of a deterioration of water quality (as measured by nutrient concentrations). Her concern focused on nitrogen and not on phosphorus (it was noted that riparian control is effective at abating phosphorus), because it was seen as a trigger of excessive periphyton. The study noted that eliminating effluent discharges to water would reduce nitrogen losses to water by about 20%. The PCE assessment for Taranaki was that the area of land dedicated to intensive dairying since 1996 had in fact reduced by about 7%; while an increase by 2020 was predicted through modelling, the magnitude of this predicted increase in absolute terms above the 1996 level was less than 3%. The PCE report presented modelling that suggested nitrogen loadings to Taranaki’s waterways had increased 4% 1996-2008, and can be expected to increase another 5% by 2020.

However, monitoring shows that in actual fact concentrations of total nitrogen in the region’s waterways have actually reduced overall throughout 1996- 2014, when loadings had supposedly increased according to the modelling; and over the last seven years- when the area of dairying was increasing again-nitrogen concentrations are continuing to reduce on a regional perspective, with no increase in total nitrogen at any site during this period. Thus, any imperative for a proactive intervention that anticipates a future major issue around increasing nutrients in the region’s waterways is not supported upon close examination. The modelling undertaken for the PCE report indicates that Taranaki is unlikely to see a major expansion of intensive dairying into catchments that hitherto were not exposed to this land use; and in addition, monitoring to date shows that the modelled outcomes are conservative- that is, they present a picture that is more pessimistic than is borne out in realisation. The work by NIWA establishes that the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in streams in Taranaki (even in 2009) were not high by national comparison. Concerns, interventions, and actions elsewhere do not transfer directly to Taranaki.

The mid and lower catchment reaches of rivers in Taranaki are shown to be phosphate-limited: that is, actions to reduce the levels of periphyton in Taranaki’s rivers (if action is needed) by reducing levels of nutrient would be more effective if they focus on phosphorus over nitrogen. However, given the frequency and nature of flushing events within Taranaki’s hydrological systems, Taranaki is simply not vulnerable to extended periods of excessive periphyton. Once flow patterns (return periods for flushing events) are taken into account, the picture of

susceptibility to excessive periphyton biomass. The imperative to reduce nutrient concentration has less application in Taranaki than elsewhere. NIWA’s nationwide data validates this analysis. Sites in Taranaki meet national criteria and are amongst the better sites nationally.

Fertiliser loadings (figure 7) and soil concentrations (data not shown) of phosphorus have largely remained stable over the last two decades but in-stream concentrations are showing some indications of stabilization and reductions since 2004.

Nitrogen loadings onto pasture have increased markedly, but in-stream nitrogen concentrations have remained stable and more recently (since 2006) have begun reducing.

Riparian management is shown to have multiple benefits for the aquatic environment-

• reduced loadings not only of nutrients, but of sediment (found by USEPA to be more critical as a pressure on water quality than nutrients are), organic content, and bacteria; • enriched in-stream and stream-bank habitat, thus supporting more diverse and abundant communities; • shading that reduces light and lowers in-stream temperature; • greater food supply via leaf litter and woody debris; • reduced run-off flow velocities

Riparian management has been shown to be amongst the most cost-effective and effective in absolute terms as a means of promoting stream health.

The diversion of treated dairy shed effluent from water under all but the most exceptional of circumstances will further reduce current nutrient loadings within the region. As with riparian management, this action has benefits not only for reduction of nutrient loadings, but also for reduced turbidity, suspended solids, organic loadings, and bacteriological impacts.

Given that:- • lag times on the ring plain of Taranaki are quite short (less than 5 years) due to free- draining soil and shallow aquifers and the intensive stream network, and that • on a site by site basis improvements in stream ecological condition have been found to be independent of trends in nutrient concentrations at the same site (data not shown); and that • the median concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in shallow groundwater across the region are very low, and if anything are gradually reducing, despite the increase in applications of broadcast nitrogenous fertiliser; and that • macroinvertebrate conditions at a substantial number of sites were showing a marked improvement even when the overall pattern of nutrient concentrations in waterways was unchanging or still deteriorating at a substantial proportion of sites; and that • the year by year increase in the number of sites showing a marked improvement in their macroinvertebrate condition is displaying a similar trajectory to the year by year increase in the extent of riparian fencing and planting; and that • an accelerating number of stream sites are showing improvements in ecological condition that are both meaningful changes and are statistically significant, at the same time that riparian fencing and planting are accelerating on a regional basis:-

it is postulated that the current primary driver for the significant improvements in ecological condition of the Taranaki region’s waterways is the implementation of the regional riparian programme. A continuation and acceleration of this programme, in association with measures to reduce effluent discharges from farm pond system, will have demonstrable and widespread benefits.

Document 1511391: Dairy Farm Practices and Management Report (prepared for Taranaki Regional Council by DairyNZ)

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide an opinion on three policy options identified by Taranaki Regional Council that need to be examined for the dairy farming industry in Taranaki.

The three policy options examined were: • Status quo- business as usual with on-going encouragement of farmers to achieve good management practice on farms • On farm mitigation requiring mandatory fencing and riparian management for all waterways, land based effluent disposal in all but exceptional circumstances and encouragement of farm good management practices • Nitrogen cap plus other farm mitigation

Effluent management aside, Options one and two are similar in expecting water ways fenced and riparian margins managed with timeframes to have this work completed before a regulatory regime is implemented for those yet to meet the deadlines. The major difference between these two policies is implementing land based effluent irrigation in all but exceptional circumstances.

In relation to the first two policy options, this report finds that: • If the rate of fencing experienced in the past two years continues fencing of waterways will be completed by 2020 • The past two years planting rate of 300km per year will need to double to achieve 90% waterway riparian planting completion • A long payback period would be required if the cost of irrigator systems is weighed up against the nutrient benefit. It should not be assumed that land application is a zero cost or economically advantageous for dairy farmers • A policy of discharge of FDE to land only, other than in exceptional circumstances, is workable and can be implemented in the majority (but not all) cases with moderate ease and minimal cost in respect of being able to utilise existing pond storage systems. • Those farms with high rainfall and large catchment areas and or high risk soils will struggle to implement a solely land based effluent irrigation system and in some cases will never be able to meet the requirements of land only application • A universal discharge to land policy is not practically workable. The consequences in practice would see some farmers forced out of dairying on their land

The third policy option of an introduced N cap of either 48kgN/ha/year or 30kgN/ha/year was also examined. Insufficient data was held of farms with leaching above 48kgN/ha/year to allow any meaningful analysis of the impact of this policy. Therefore this report focuses on the 30kgN/ha/year nutrient cap.

• Use of a nutrient cap is rejected for a number of reasons outlined in the report, particularly because farmers would feel obliged to manage their farms according to Overseer instead of according to good management practices, a sound understanding of their land and landscape, and the day to day changes and demands of farming activity • A nutrient limit on land use would be inequitable, carry high implementation and high compliance costs, and be unable to achieve the desired outcomes on a sub-regional or

regional basis, because of variation in soil characteristics, topography, hydrology, and weather patterns, from farm to farm. Many of the factors driving a relatively high rate of nutrient loss are outside a farmer’s control on a day to day basis • There are a relatively large number (40%+/-) of farms which simply would be unable to achieve a 30kgN/ha/year Overseer limit. The consequences of such a limit in practice would be farmers forced off their land and loss of land productivity • Even for those farms able to meet a 30kgN/ha/year cap, in some cases the extent of changes and attendant costs to existing farm practices and farm productivity may mean costs are substantial and benefits negligible • There is a considerable financial cost to the industry of meeting a N cap of 30kgN/ha/year.

The report compares Taranaki with the rest of the country and finds Taranaki’s dairy farming practices are different. In general, the region is wetter, farms are smaller, there is less capital investment and infrastructure is older.

It should be noted that this analysis is for the Taranaki Region only. It should not be taken as having application in part or whole to any other region or to the content and implementation of any regional plan elsewhere.

Document 1501001 Supplementary Report- Nutrient Management Tools/Models (prepared for the Taranaki Regional Council by CHC Consultants)

Executive Summary

The Taranaki Regional Council has identified that the cumulative effects of agricultural sourced discharges – whether to land or water – are a major human induced pressure on Taranaki’s freshwater quality.

While it is understood that Taranaki’s overall freshwater quality is relatively good, with mainly improving trends, Council’s aim is to keep those water quality trends positive. The Council recognises that any interventionary measures must be justifiable in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and need, with a staged implementation that reflects established urgency and criticality, as set out in Sections 32(3) and (4) of the RMA.

As part of the review of the Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki, Council is assessing the economic costs and benefits of adopting three policy options for the management of nutrient from dairy farms, in accordance with the recent amendments to Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991. These three policy options (discussed in Section 7 of this Report) are: • Option One – Status quo • Option Two – On-farm mitigation • Option Three – Nutrient cap plus on-farm mitigation

In more recent years a number of regional councils have prepared regional plans that intend to regulate land use activities to manage nutrient losses and thereby maintain or enhance water quality, and a number of tools/models have been used in some instances in order to estimate and thereby regulate nutrient losses and demonstrate compliance. As regional councils prepare and review regional land and water plans, a range of mechanisms are being incorporated into plans to manage nutrients and the effects of nutrients on the environment. In particular, tools/models are being used to support the setting of limits and targets and to support the use of good management practices. Tools/models are also increasingly being used as part of conditions on consents and in compliance. The appropriateness of using these tools/methods in a regulatory setting has been and continues to be the subject of some considerable discussion.

This Supplementary Report – Nutrient Management Tools/Models intends to provide background information and opinion on current tools/models used in dairy farm nutrient management and the use of these tools/models in a regulatory setting including OVERSEER®, CLUES, the use of LUC and other mechanisms to assist the Taranaki Regional Council prepare a well-informed and carefully evaluated Economic Costs & Benefits Report.

A range of approaches have been developed by industry groups and councils to address issues associated with nutrient losses on farms, including good management practices, adaptive management, and regulation. To assist with a number of these approaches, tools and models have been developed as part of ensuring good management practices are been adopted, and adaptive management approaches are being effective. These tools and models include OVERSEER® which is primarily used to establish and monitor nutrient budgets on a year by year basis; CLUES which is a GIS based modelling system which assesses the effects of land use change on water quality and socio-economic indicators; and the use of LUC Classification.

A strength of OVERSEER® is that it is able to demonstrate the impact of the relative effect of changing some management practices, inputs or mitigations on nutrient loss from a farm or block. Another strength is that it estimates N loss (from the bottom of the paddock root zone) and P loss risk (to the farm boundary). However, users of the tool need to fully understand how to operate the model properly, its limitations across the range of farming activities and what the outputs actually mean. In addition, OVERSEER® is not an environmental management tool as it cannot assess the contribution of the farm’s N and P losses to nutrient levels in, the receiving environment, let alone any consequent environmental effect.

Nutrient Budgets (prepared using OVERSEER® 6) estimate the amount (kg) of N/ha/yr lost to the atmosphere as gaseous forms of N and how much (kg) N/ha/yr is lost from beneath the farming system. This is primarily the estimate of how much N moves below the root zone in drainage water, particularly on flat land. However, it is not, nor should be interpreted as, the amount of N which necessarily enters receiving water (confined, unconfined aquifers or surface water). Given that the N loss estimate is what is leaving the root zone, it is inappropriate to use OVERSEER® loss estimates to solely determine N loss limits which are designed to protect or improve receiving water quality.

CLUES is a GIS based modelling system which assesses the effects of land use change on water quality and socio-economic indicators. It allows users to create both land use and farm practice change scenarios (stocking rates, mitigation) using a range of tools and results are available in map and tabular displays.

In summary, this analysis has identified a number of key findings: • There are environmental (including climatic; hydrological; fresh water ecology; soil characteristics) and on-farm practice differences between Taranaki and those areas of New Zealand that are facing greatest pressure upon land use conversion, and that these differences present a different context within which to consider the use of modelling tools; • The relationship between the nutrient losses from any particular farm, and the water quality at any particular point within a catchment, simply cannot be quantified; • Models are mathematical approximations to reality, which can never be accurately represented no matter what the choice of equations, coefficients, and correction factors; • Individual farms will not correspond exactly to categories used in models - there will be inevitable divergences in factors such as soil structure, climate, cow numbers, and farming practice; • There is no representation of a farms impact on the wider environment as off- farm subsequent transportation and attenuation processes are not (yet) determined by the tools/models (new models are being developed to assist with this for P loss especially) - therefore individual on-farm practices on particular parts of a farm are treated by tools/models as equal, but not all parts of a farm contribute to off-site effects to the same degree – short term (but high impact) effects on critical source areas are not captured by the tools/models but rather long term estimates of the farm system as a whole are modelled;

• A regulatory regime that is based on a whole of catchment approach must of necessity take a starting point of regarding all farms as having an equal contribution and having to meet the same allocation imposition if target water quality is to be attained, when this does not reflect reality; • Experience shows widely varying factors for attenuation between farm and receiving waters, so that OVERSEER® outputs cannot easily be related to actual water quality; • By inherent limitation, a model cannot take account of innovative practices that are outside the model design, and so evolving practices cannot be recognised and rewarded; • The use of an on-farm annual nutrient budget model to estimate in-stream receiving water quality is not supported as there is no quantifiable link between on farm N loss below the root zone and in-stream receiving water; • In-stream water quality is the aggregation of field level interactions, soil, sub- soil, and edge-of-field buffering and release, soil capacity exceedances and renewal, hydrology of storm events and base climate, in-stream biological processing, deposition and re-suspension and dissolution and uptake and adsorption, and contribution from natural sources such as aerial deposition and erosion - to take a single field–scale intervention and attempt to relate it to chemical and biological water quality measures at the catchment scale is fraught with complexity.

The analysis set out in the following pages confirms that a range of issues arise from the use of tools/models in a regulatory setting. Broadly speaking these issues include: the tool/model was never intended to be used in a regulatory setting and any use should be appropriate and relevant to the issue being addressed; the regulatory setting and compliance requires certainty whereas the use of tools/models is inherently uncertain due to a range of factors including limitations in data availability and accuracy, the application of the tool/model, the input choices and operator competency; the limitations of the model to represent reality in farm systems; gaps in the science available to enable the tools/models to deliver the outcomes sought by the resource manager; validation and calibration of tools/models is near impossible; revisions of tools/models can change outputs that can lead to non-compliance with regulatory mechanisms.

Thus, the use of modelling tools within the Taranaki context does not meet statutory expectations for consents/rules in a regional plan, of relevance, certainty, clarity, necessity, effectiveness, and efficiency. This report examines the strengths and limitations of modelling tools; a companion report explores the implications of the findings of this examination for the application of modelling within a regulatory setting.

The implications of the above issues include: • that the Taranaki Regional Council should not use tools/models (such as OVERSEER® and LUC) with regulatory force in their plans and decision making to endeavour to achieve environmental outcomes because of the reality of incomplete or inadequate input information (information gaps that are potentially very significant in terms of suitability within a regulatory setting); • where there are gaps in the science or the tools/modelling, tools/models not ‘fit for purpose’ should not be adapted or utilised in the interim; and

• gaps in science/management need to be addressed, if indeed they can be, before tools/models will provide the certainty and outcomes required.

Of the three policy options being assessed by Council to address nutrient management issues in the Taranaki Region, Option 3 (Nutrient Cap plus other on-farm mitigation) is the least likely to satisfy the assessment criteria from a nutrient management perspective. There are a number of cumulatively compounding constraints associated with utilising existing tools/models in a regulatory setting that will impact on the overall effectiveness of this policy option.

Document 1560309: Assessment of the agricultural economic impacts of nutrient management policies in Taranaki (prepared for Taranaki Regional Council by LWP Ltd)

Executive Summary

A freshwater plan (the Regional Fresh Water Plan for Taranaki, or RFWP) has been in effect in Taranaki since October 2001, and Taranaki Regional Council is currently reviewing this plan. As part of the review the Council is assessing the economic costs and benefits of including different nutrient management options into a reviewed Taranaki Regional Freshwater Plan. This report provides an assessment of the agricultural economics associated with the options to be considered There are three policy options that the council wishes to consider in respect of its review:

• Option 1 - Status quo which involves continuation of the voluntary Riparian Management Programme

• Option 2 - On farm mitigation, which involves timely full completion of the Riparian Management Programme and land disposal of dairy farm effluent; and

• Option 3 – Nutrient Cap which involves setting nutrient caps at either 48 kg N/ha/year or 30 kg N/ha/year plus the mitigations in Option 2.

The analysis addresses land use change and intensification, riparian fencing and planting; dairy effluent discharges to land; the costs of meeting caps on N emissions; and administrative cost. The results are aggregated for the region taking into account variation in land use, climate, soils, and current infrastructure to the extent possible. The costs should be treated with some caution as the analysis was developed from a limited number of case studies and data.

The results for the analysis are shown in Table 1 below and in greater detail in the appendix. Option 1, which equates to the current situation, incurs total costs for the agricultural sector of approximately $40 million over 25 years or $17 million in NPV(8%) terms, which is the costs of completing the riparian fencing and planting programme to 90%. Option 2 incurs additional costs for riparian planting and dairy effluent management. The riparian planting costs increase from $40 to $54 million in aggregate expenditure and also in NPV terms to $42 million because of the earlier implementation of the policy in Option 2. The dairy effluent imposes additional costs of NPV $64 million, which is the cost of constructing and lining ponds, and installing irrigation systems for disposal to land. These costs are partially offset by the nutrient benefits associated with the effluent, which is equal to $48 million NPV. The total cost of Option 2 is $58 million NPV, which is $41 million more than Option 1. Option 3 with a cap at 30kgN/ha will have costs that are more than an order of magnitude greater than Option 1, with total costs of $1010 million NPV (8%). The majority of this ($560 million NPV) is mitigation cost for dairy properties, but reducing the potential for intensification and development will also impose costs in the order of $360 million NPV. Option 3 with the cap at 48kgN/ha will have lower cost than the 30kgN/ha cap, but these will still be significant at $340 million NPV total. Again the majority of this is costs from mitigation ($170 million NPV) and costs associated with restrictions on intensification ($96 million NPV). This option has a cost that is $326 million NPV greater than Option 1.

Table 1: Summary NPV results for agricultural impacts ($million NPV, 8%)

Option 3 3 Item Subitem 1 2 (30 kgN/ha) (48 kgN/ha) Riparian fencing and planting $17 $42 $42 $42 Dairy effluent Costs $0 $64 $64 $64 Benefits $0 -$48 -$48 -$48 Nutrient management Mitigation $0 $0 $579 $174 Development and intensification $0 $0 $359 $97 Administration $0 $0 $15 $13 Total $17 $58 $1,011 $343 Cost relative to Status Quo (Option 1) $42 $994 $326

Sensitivity testing was undertaken on the key assumptions made during the analysis. The major sensitivity is to the exclusion of intensification and changes to the discount rate. However overall the ordering of options is not changed by alteration to the assumptions, and it appears reasonable to state that the overall outcomes are reasonably robust to changes in individual assumptions. The results indicate the relative ranking of the options in terms of cost to the farming community: Option 1 > Option 2 >>Option 3 (48) >> Option 3 (30). The N caps in particular will impose significant cost on the dairy and dairy support sectors, with the majority of this borne by the dairy operations. The dairy effluent and riparian protection requirements will also impose costs, but these costs are significantly smaller. Therefore Options 1 and 2 are strongly preferred from an agricultural point of view. Given the size of costs associated with the N caps their imposition would seem to require very strong justification in terms of environmental gains. However a decision on the relative trade-off between costs and environmental gains remains a political decision and not one that is amenable to quantitative analysis.

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Freshwater bodies of outstanding or significant value in the Taranaki region

Item: 6

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1556452

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce the report Freshwater Bodies of Outstanding or Significant Value in the Taranaki Region (the draft Report). This report informs the review of the Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki (the Freshwater Plan).

A copy of the draft Report is attached separate to this Agenda.

Executive summary • The draft Report has been prepared by the Taranaki Regional Council to inform the section 32 analysis being undertaken as part of the review of the Freshwater Plan and to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM). • The draft Report assesses, evaluates, and identifies the attributes and values of water bodies in relation to their significance. In particular, the report identifies rivers and lakes that contain ‘outstanding’ or ‘regionally significant’ values. • The NPSFM defines ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ to be “…those water bodies identified in a regional policy statement or regional plan as having outstanding values, including ecological, landscape, recreational and spiritual values”. That is they are exceptional in some way. Of note in accordance with the NPSFM, such areas are afforded a very high level of protection. • Water bodies not otherwise identified as outstanding may still be identified as having significant attributes or values for which adverse effects resulting from activities must be avoided, remedied or mitigated via Plan policies, rules and the resource consents process. • This study and the preparation of the draft Report were based on a largely desktop exercise, following best practice methodologies, and building upon the findings of previous work, including the outcomes of public processes associated with the development of the current Freshwater Plan and the Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki.

• In summary, and following assessment against a range of criteria, the report identifies three water bodies to have outstanding natural character and other freshwater values. These being the Hangatahua (Stony) River, the Maketawa Stream, and Lake Rotokare. • Another water body – the upper Manganui catchment – is identified in the draft Report as having freshwater attributes and values that are ranked very high but the overall ranking did not meet the ‘outstanding’ criterion. • Although not rated ‘outstanding’, a further 48 catchments are identified in the draft Report as having regionally significant freshwater attributes and values. These values relate to regionally important natural character, features, and/or amenity, recreational, fishery, ecological, cultural or historical values. • It is proposed that further feedback on the areas identified is sought from interested external parties through targeted consultation. Areas identified as outstanding or significant will be included in schedules of a revised Freshwater Plan with policies and rules proposed to protect, maintain or enhance those values.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum and draft Report entitled Freshwater Bodies of Outstanding or Significant Value in the Taranaki Region 2. notes that the findings and recommendations of this report will be used to inform the review of the Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki and the section 32 analysis 3. notes the draft Report will be sent to key interested parties, including tangata whenua, district councils and Fish and Game New Zealand, for comment.

Background As Members are aware the Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) is in the process of reviewing its Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki (Freshwater Plan). As part of that review, the Council must ‘give effect to’, or implement, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM). The NPSFM contains some new themes not presently covered in the existing Freshwater Plan, including the identification of ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’.

The NPSFM defines outstanding freshwater bodies as those:

“…identified in a regional policy statement or plan as having outstanding values – including ecological, landscape, recreational and spiritual values.”

An outstanding freshwater body is therefore one that is exceptional in some way. The NPSFM contains objectives and policies requiring the significant values of those bodies to be protected. Protecting outstanding freshwater bodies means meeting a high threshold, and the Government anticipates there is only likely to be a small number of outstanding freshwater bodies identified by regional councils across the country. The NPSFM does not provide guidance on how ‘outstanding’ values should be assessed. However, through case law the Courts have provided the following meaning ‘Outstanding’ means conspicuous, eminent, especially because of excellence and remarkable in.

Taranaki has 20,000 kilometres of waterways and no less than 530 named rivers and streams. Taranaki also has 19 lakes with an area greater than eight hectares and over 1,200 wetlands. Our rivers, lakes and wetlands are an important and valued part of Taranaki’s environment

and quality of life. They contribute to the region’s environmental, economic, cultural and social wellbeing. Freshwater values and uses associated with Taranaki’s rivers, lakes, and wetlands (and aquifers) are wide ranging and include both consumptive and instream values. Within any waterbody there maybe multiple sometimes conflicting values and uses that vary in their significance, and/or which may apply to the whole waterbody or part of the waterbody.

On 1 May 2015, the Council released the draft Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki (the draft Plan) for targeted consultation. The draft Plan introduces the concept of outstanding freshwater bodies plus identifies other water bodies considered to have regionally significant freshwater values. Prior to publicly notifying a Proposed Plan in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council must carry out an evaluation of the alternatives, benefits and costs of the Plan under section 32 of the Act. To inform the section 32 evaluation and public consultation on the Plan the Council has prepared the report Freshwater Bodies of Outstanding or Significant Value in the Taranaki Region. The draft Report examines the statutory and planning framework for assessing natural character, features, landscapes and other freshwater values of Taranaki rivers and lakes, sets out the criteria for evaluating those values, and identifies water bodies determined by the study to have outstanding and/or regionally significant values.

This exercise builds on earlier work undertaken in previous studies and/or through previous consultative processes associated with the adoption of the current Freshwater Plan and Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki (RPS).

In relation to the Freshwater Plan, which was made operative in 2001, the Plan already contains strong policies and rules to protect the outstanding natural characteristics and features of the Hangatahua (Stony) River. Prior to the Plan, the Hangatahua (Stony) River was protected by the former Local Water Conservation (Stony (Hangatahua) River) Notice 1985 – the first of its kind to New Zealand. The Plan further identifies two other catchments – the Maketawa and upper Manganui reaches – where natural flows must be maintained (i.e. no major water takes). Appendix IA of the Plan then identifies 42 river and stream catchments of high quality or high value for their natural, ecological and amenity values.

In relation to the RPS, which was made operative in 2010, the 42 high quality or high value river and stream catchments identified in the Freshwater Plan were similarly considered and included. The RPS further identifies the Hangatahua River, Maketawa Stream and Lake Rotokare (not the Manganui) as being outstanding in their natural value, features and landscapes.

Assessment methodology As noted above, the Council has previously identified water bodies of high quality or high value for their natural, ecological and amenity values in the current Freshwater Plan and RPS. Therefore as part of the review of the Freshwater Plan, and for the purposes of aligning and giving effect to the NPSFM, the Council has re-evaluated these and other water bodies to identify attributes and values that are ‘outstanding’ or ‘significant’ and which may require an added level of protection through policies and rules.

This study and the preparation of this Report are based upon a desktop exercise. In the absence of national guidance on criteria for evaluating and determining ‘outstanding’ attributes and values, the draft Report, firstly, examines existing case law and best practice

methodologies for determining outstanding natural features and landscapes (i.e. section 6(b) RMA matters). Secondly, it has evaluated water bodies in relation to their freshwater attributes and values, including an assessment of their significance.

The assessment involved the following steps: • Research of selected water bodies identified as outstanding in the current Freshwater Plan, RPS, and other public review processes, including previous landscape assessments (district and regional level). • Collation of relevant GIS data and technical information, including topographical maps, aerial imagery of candidate water bodies, geology, land cover, recorded natural areas, consents database. • Evaluation of key values of candidate water bodies through the assessment criteria to: - identify key attributes and values for freshwater bodies with outstanding natural character, landscapes and features, and associative values; or - identify water bodies not otherwise identified as ‘outstanding’ but nevertheless having regionally significant freshwater values.

The rational, methodology and findings of the assessments are outlined below.

Candidate outstanding freshwater bodies For an area to have outstanding natural character it must display a combination of natural elements, patterns and processes that are superior in their extent, intactness, integrity and lack of built structures and other modifications compared to other freshwater bodies in the region. The draft Report defines the term ‘outstanding’, in accordance with case law, as meaning “…conspicuous, eminent, especially because of excellence and remarkable in and that usually an outstanding landscape should be obvious (in general terms) that there is no need for expert analysis.”

In summary and based on the Report’s assessment methodology, three water bodies clearly have attributes or features that are exceptional or outstanding in some way. These are: • Hangatahua (Stony) River • Lake Rotokare • Maketawa Stream.

Outstanding freshwater bodies are proposed to be identified as a freshwater management unit whereby policies and rules will seek that adverse effects on the quality and values of the outstanding freshwater body must be avoided. For one of the catchments – the Maketawa Stream – it is noted that there are a small number of treated farm dairy discharges to water that may need to be diverted to land in the future. The movement towards land based discharge systems is also occurring elsewhere in the region.

Another water body – the upper Manganui catchment – is identified in the draft report as having freshwater attributes and values that are ranked very high but the overall ranking did not meet the ‘outstanding’ criterion. However, given the subjectivity inherent in landscape assessments this conclusion should be tested through the public review process for the Freshwater Plan.

Other significant freshwater bodies Water bodies not otherwise identified as ‘outstanding’ may still be identified as significant for which adverse effects resulting from activities must be avoided, remedied or mitigated via Plan policies, rules and the resource consents process.

Although not rated ‘outstanding’, a further 48 catchments are identified in the draft Report as having regionally significant freshwater attributes and values. These include those waterways previously identified via community input to the Freshwater Plan in 2001 where regionally significant attributes and values remain unchanged. However, through this study, a small number of additional sites have been selected and, as appropriate, the attributes and values of existing selected waterways updated taking into account new information.

Appendix III of the draft Report presents a summary of the attributes and values associated with freshwater bodies identified to have ‘outstanding’ or ‘regionally significant’ (high) instream values. Some values will be catchment wide while other values may be confined to a specific area or reach. These values relate to: • regionally important natural character, aesthetic or amenity values • contact recreation • trout or whitebait fishery values • trout or inanga spawning habitat • native fishery values and/or • cultural, spiritual and historical associations.

Of note, the rivers, lakes and waterways identified are based upon present knowledge and, in relation to native fisheries and tangata whenua values, may not be an exhaustive selection.

Future directions The current Freshwater Plan already contains a policy that seeks that the high natural, ecological and amenity values of those rivers and streams be maintained and enhanced as far as practicable, with adverse effects of activities being avoided as far as practicable, or remedied or mitigated. However, as part of the review of the Freshwater Plan, it is proposed that the current broad approach of ‘maintenance and enhancement’ be further refined, and specific policy be developed in a revised Freshwater Plan for managing specific freshwater values.

The proposed approach will provide greater direction and certainty through reflecting the different management approaches needed for each value in ensuring that they are maintained and enhanced. This approach will also enable effect to be given to the NPSFM and the RPS which contain some specific directions for some of the values.

It is further recommended that high value freshwater bodies be identified within separate schedules of the Plan (instead of one schedule) according to each value identified. Adverse effects associated with use and development can then be managed through the consenting process to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of those instream values.

It is recommended that the Council forward the draft Report to interested external parties, including tangata whenua, district councils and Fish and Game New Zealand, and seek feedback on the areas identified.

Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council.

Appendices/Attachments – one separate report Document number: 1476311. Draft Freshwater Bodies of Outstanding or Significant Value in the Taranaki Region.

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 September 2015

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Report on Advocacy and Response activities for the 2014/2015 year

Item: 7

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1553530

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to report to the Committee on advocacy and response activities for the 2014/2015 year.

Executive summary The Annual Plan for 2014/2015 has a level of service in relation to advocacy and response activities of approximately 20 submissions made per year on policy initiatives proposed by other agencies.

In the 2014/2015 year 22 submissions were made (21 in 2013/2014).

Submissions were made in relation to policy being developed on the Council’s Regional Land Transport Plan 2015 – 2025, the South Taranaki District Plan review, and various policy documents prepared by the New Plymouth District Council. Other matters that the Council made submissions on were the Draft New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy and Shell Todd Oil Services marine consent application for the Maui Field.

The net effect of the Council’s wide ranging advocacy and response activities has been to make policy proposals more relevant, pragmatic and cost-effective for the region.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum Report on Advocacy and Response activities for the 2014/2015 year 2. notes the 2014/2015 Annual Plan level of service target for submissions has been met.

Background The 2014/2015 Annual Plan had the following activity planned for the 2014/2015 year:

Advocacy and response

Assess the implications of policy initiatives proposed by other agencies including discussion documents, proposed policies, strategies, plans and draft legislation, and respond within required timeframes on approximately 20 occasions per year.

Effective advocacy on behalf of the Taranaki community on matters that affect the statutory responsibilities of the Council or that relate to matters of regional significance which are of interest or concern to the people of Taranaki is an important area of work for the Council.

However, the amount of effort that is put into advocacy and response work is determined to a large extent by those that are proposing policy changes, reviews or draft legislation. As a result in any one year the number of submissions made may be below the level of service indicated in the Annual Plan or Long Term Plan or may be above that level.

Where the policy proposals are related directly to the Council’s core statutory obligations or we have knowledge or experience that will be of benefit to those proposing the change priority is accorded to these.

Submissions made in 2014/2015

The Council made 22 submissions to policy proposals or initiatives proposed by various agencies in 2014/2015. This compares with 21 submissions made in the previous year (2013/2014) and 28 in 2012/2013. The number of submissions made over the last 5 years is shown in Figure 1 below.

0 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

Figure 1 Number of submissions made by year

The full list of submissions made in 2014/2015 and the outcome of those submissions (where known) are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Submissions made in 2014/2015 Submission made to Policy initiative or proposal Result Ministry of Civil Defence and Sector consultation: Revised National CDEM plan Submission was considered Emergency Management Ministry of Transport Submission on draft GPS 2015 Submission was considered New Zealand Transport Proposed speed limit change to State Highway 3 Speed limit change confirmed Agency Whangamōmona Maritime New Zealand Draft New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy Changes made to draft Strategy. Other changes sought, to be addressed in other documents Waikato Regional Council Inclusion of SH3 improvements in regional land Submission was considered transport plans for 2015-2021 Waikato Regional Council Draft strategic corridors section of Waikato Regional Submission was considered and Council RLTP changes made South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Energy Submission forwarded. Matter is provisions under consideration New Zealand Transport Impact of delayed decisions on local government Submission was considered Agency processes New Plymouth District Council Draft Tongaporutu Reserve Management Plan Draft Reserve Management Plan amended New Plymouth District Council Hearing of submissions on Plan change 20: Area Q Decisions gave effect to Council rezoning concerns regarding reverse sensitivity issue Waikato Regional Council Draft Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015- Submission was considered and 2045 changes made Horizons Regional Council Draft Horizons Regional Land Transport Plan 2015- Submission was considered and 2025 changes made Taranaki Regional Council Draft Regional Land Transport Plan for Taranaki Submission was considered and 2015/16-2020/21 changes made New Plymouth District Council Draft Open space, sport and recreation strategy – 30 Draft strategy amended years Environmental Protection Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd marine consent application Submission was considered Authority for the Maui Field South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Natural Submission forwarded. Matter is hazards, forestry and earthworks provisions under consideration South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Landscape Submission forwarded. Matter is assessment and associated draft provisions under consideration South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Oil and gas Submission forwarded. Matter is industry under consideration South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Biodiversity Submission forwarded. Matter is under consideration New Plymouth District Council Consultation document for 2015/2025 Long Term Plan Submission was considered and changes made South Taranaki District Council Proposed South Taranaki District Plan: Hazardous Submission forwarded. Matter is substances under consideration New Zealand Transport SH3 Awakino to Mt Messenger corridor draft IBC Submission forwarded. Matter is Agency under consideration.

Submissions were made with input from staff across the Council. All submissions were made within the required timeframes. Considerable time was spent in advocating on matters relating to the preparation of the Council’s Regional Land Transport Plan 2015 – 2021. This was the first Regional Land Transport plan to be prepared by the Council under the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2013. The amendment Act replaced the previous Regional Land Transport Strategy for Taranaki, and the Regional Land Transport Programme for Taranaki with a single document that contained both long term strategic land transport objectives and policies and detailed project funding and financial details for land transport activities in the region for the next three years, and financial forecasts of anticipated revenue and expenditure for the next 10 years. The Plan was also to contain new requirements relating to the assessment of projects put forward by approved organisations for funding assistance from the National Land Transport Fund. The Plan was to be consistent with the Government Policy Statement of Land Transport. The Plan was prepared in the context of a changing environment including delays to the release of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, a review of the Funding Assistance Rates which determine the level of co-investment by the New Zealand Transport Agency in land transport projects and ongoing work on the One Network Roading Classification, all of which affected the preparation of the Plan. There were also timing issues with work on council Long Term Plans only in early draft form at the time the Council was required to consult on the Plan to have it completed and submitted to the New Zealand Transport Agency by the deadline of 30 April 2015. This led the Council to write to the New Zealand Land Transport Agency in October 2014 expressing concern at the impact of delayed decisions on local government processes. The Council met the 30 April deadline for submitting the Plan but in doing so noted that it was a ‘snapshot in time’ and changes or variations to the Plan would be required over its term. Regional councils have since had a debrief on the process of preparing regional land transport plans and representatives have subsequently met with the Ministry of Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency in an effort to improve a number of aspects of the process. The Taranaki Regional Council was represented at the meeting. Further meetings are planned. Submissions related to regional land transport plans were made to Waikato and Horizons regional councils and the Taranaki Regional Council, the Ministry of Transport on the Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport, and the New Zealand Transport Agency. Another area of significant work for the Council was in relation to the proposed review of the South Taranaki District Plan. The South Taranaki District Council sought staff comment on a number of provisions ahead of the formal notification of the proposed Plan which was publically notified for submissions on 15 August 2015. A draft submission will be brought before this Committee before the closing date of submissions on 12 October 2015. Submissions were also lodged or feedback provided to the New Plymouth District Council on various policy matters. Evidence was presented at a hearing of submissions on proposed plan change 20 regarding reverse sensitivity effects of a proposed residential rezoning on a chicken farm in the vicinity of Airport Drive. The matter has been resolved.

On other matters, the Council made submissions to Maritime New Zealand on the draft New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy. Some changes were made to the draft strategy while other changes sought by the Council were to be addressed in other documents. In February 2015 the Council submitted to the Environmental Protection Authority on marine consent applications sought by Shell Todd Services Ltd in relation to the Maui Field. Evidence was subsequently presented at the hearing of submissions. It is sometimes difficult to determine, given the processes adopted, whether the submissions have made a difference to the policy or other matters under consideration. In some cases there is formal feedback that the submissions were successful (or not) while in others no or limited feedback is provided. Senior Council staff receive anecdotal feedback on submissions that is very positive, and that changes in policy have been made as a result or other actions taken in recognition of the matters raised. The Council’s reputation and experience as being a successful regulator and policy developer is well recognised and its views valued. Senior council staff were also involved in various working parties or other fora in Wellington and elsewhere to advise on policy development (e.g. MPI Landfarming Guide working group, MPI Soil and Land Strategic review working group, and Science National Advisory Group and national science challenge). In addition, Council staff respond to many other requests for advice or comment on policy matters. The net effect of the Council’s wide ranging advocacy and response activities has been to make policy proposals more relevant, pragmatic and cost-effective for the region. The work has contributed to the Council’s community outcomes of a sustainable and prosperous Taranaki.

Legal considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations comply with the appropriate statutory requirements imposed upon the Council.

Agenda reports

Policy and Planning Committee, September 2015

Item 3: Bathing Beach Recreational Water Quality (1.9 MB)

Item 4: Freshwater contact recreational water quality (3.6 MB)

Item 5: Review of the status of freshwater quality in Taranaki (1.5 MB)

Dairy farm practices and management report (590 KB)

Assessment of impacts of nutrient management policies in Taranaki (555 KB)

Supplementary Report – Nutrient Management Tools/Models (870 KB)

Item 6: Freshwater bodies of outstanding or significant value (3.2 MB)