I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment Committee will be held on:
Date: Wednesday, 9 March 2016 Time: 9.00am Venue: Tararua Room Horizons Regional Council 11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chair Cr CI Sheldon Deputy Chair Cr GM McKellar Councillors Cr JJ Barrow Cr EB Gordon (ex officio) Cr MC Guy Cr RJ Keedwell Cr PJ Kelly JP DR Pearce BE Rollinson
Michael McCartney Chief Executive
Contact Telephone: 0508 800 800 Email: [email protected] Postal Address: Private Bag 11025, Palmerston North 4442
Full Agendas are available on Horizons Regional Council website www.horizons.govt.nz
Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Items in the agenda may be subject to amendment or withdrawal at the meeting.
for further information regarding this agenda, please contact: Julie Kennedy, 06 9522 800
CONTACTS 24 hr Freephone : [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz 0508 800 800
SERVICE Kairanga Marton Taumarunui Woodville CENTRES Cnr Rongotea & Hammond Street 34 Maata Street Cnr Vogel (SH2) & Tay Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Rds, Sts Palmerston North
REGIONAL Palmerston North Wanganui HOUSES 11-15 Victoria Avenue 181 Guyton Street
DEPOTS Levin Taihape 11 Bruce Road Torere Road Ohotu
POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 ADDRESS FAX 06 9522 929
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Apologies and Leave of Absence 5
2 Public Speaking Rights 5
3 Supplementary Items 5
4 Members’ Conflict of Interest 5
5 Confirmation of Minutes Environment Committee meeting, 9 December 2015 7
6 Massey University Collaborative Research Programme Report No: 16-43 13
7 Environmental Education Report No: 16-44 15
8 District Advice Update Report No: 16-45 19 Annex A - Horizons Submission on NOR to Designate Turners link Road 27 Annex B - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15A Rural Subdivision 29 Annex C - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15B Windfarms and Landscapes 30 Annex D - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15C Boundary Change Area 32 Annex E - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15D Natural Hazards - Pen Tucker 33 Annex F - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15D Natural Hazards - Peter Blackwood 42 Annex G - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC 15 E North East Industrial Zone 47 Annex H - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15G Utilities 49 Annex I - Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15H Airport Zone 54 Annex J - Horizons Further Submission on WDC PC45 60 Annex K - Horizons Feedback on WDC Outstanding Natural Landscapes 61
Page 3
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
9 Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January 2016 Report No: 16-46 69 Annex A - Rangitikei District Council Consent Compliance Report – July 2015 to October 2015 83 Annex B - Tararua District Council Wastewater Treatment Plant performance 87
10 Tararua District Council - Update on Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects Report No: 16-47 89
11 Freshwater & Science Progress Report Report No: 16-48 91 Annex A - Freshwater and Science Progress Report 93
12 Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Report No: 16-49 143 Annex A - Biosecurity and Habitat Protection Progress Report 145
13 Members’ Questions
Page 4
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
AGENDA
1 Apologies and Leave of Absence At the close of the Agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Public Speaking Rights Notification to speak is required by 4pm on the working day prior to the meeting. Further information is available on www.horizons.govt.nz\Council\ or by phoning 0508 800 800.
Petitions/Deputations Deputations: Written notice (fewer than 150 words) concerning the nature of the deputation must be lodged with the Chief Executive at least 2 working days before the date of the meeting and subsequently approved by the Chairperson. Petitions: Written notice to the Chief Executive is required at least 2 working days before the date of the meeting.
Further information is available on www.horizons.govt.nz\Council\ or by phoning 0508 800 800.
3 Supplementary Items To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Committee/Council to consider any further items relating to items following below which do not appear on the Order Paper of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded. Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended), and the Chairperson must advise: (i) The reason why the item was not on the Order Paper, and (ii) The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.
4 Members’ Conflict of Interest Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any conflicts of interest they might have in respect of the items on this Agenda.
Page 5
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Minutes of the twelfth meeting of the ninth triennium of the Environment Committee held at 9.04am on Wednesday 9 December 2015, in the Tararua Room, Horizons Regional Council, 11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North.
PRESENT Crs CI Sheldon (Chair), JJ Barrow (from 9.21am), EB Gordon (ex officio), MC Guy (to 11.25am and from 12.45pm), RJ Keedwell, PJ Kelly JP, GM McKellar (to 11.29am and from 12.45pm), DR Pearce. IN ATTENDANCE Councillor P Rieger Chief Executive Mr MJ McCartney Committee Secretary Ms M Boekman / Mrs JA Kennedy ALSO PRESENT At various times during the meeting: Mrs S Craig (Corporate Information Manager), Dr N Peet (Group Manager Strategy & Regulation), Mr C Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental Management), Dr J Roygard (Manager Freshwater & Science), Mr T Bowen (Manager Strategy & Policy), Ms A Koehler (Media & Communications Manager), Mrs C Hesselin (Communications Advisor), Mr J Lambie (Science Coordinator), Mr G Bevin (Regulatory Manager), Ms C Clark (Senior Scientist-Water Quality), Mr B Martyn (Environmental Manager- Biosecurity & Biodiversity), Mrs H Thomas (Environmental Educator), Liaison), Ms V Taueki (Muaupoko Cooperative Society), Cr M Feyen (Horowhenua District Council), Mr R Ketu, Mr A Hurunui (Ngati Whakatere), and supporters, Mr C Andrews (Shannon Progressive Association), Messrs Rajeeve Rai, Dylan Atkinson, Jerome Springhall, and Kaylem Cudby-Geale (Students North Street School) and Ms Christine Hailes (Teacher North Street School), members of the public, and a member of the press.
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
APOLOGIES
ENV 15-92 Moved Gordon/Pearce That the Committee: receives an apology from Cr Rollinson, and notes the apologies of Crs Burnell and Cotton. CARRIED
Public Speaking Rights had been granted to Ms Vivienne Taueki, Cr Michael Feyen, Mr Corney Andrews, and Messrs Adrian Hurunui and Robert Ketu. The Chair advised that Public Speaking Rights would be taken after the presentation from North Street School.
SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS There were no supplementary items to be considered.
Page 7
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
MEMBERS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST There were no conflicts of interest declared.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ENV 15-93 Moved Gordon/Pearce That the Committee: confirms the minutes of the Environment Committee meeting held on 14 October 2015 as a correct record, and notes that the recommendations were adopted by the Council on 28 October 2015. CARRIED
PRESENTATION: NORTH STREET SCHOOL Report No 15-255 Students from North Street School spoke of their ongoing research and investigations into the Makino Stream. They presented a powerpoint which detailed their findings around changes in the flow and water quality, health, erosion issues, and freshwater life of the Stream.
Cr Barrow joined the meeting at 9.21am
The students said they were keen to continue with their studies and had developed some ‘next steps’ guidelines to continue their investigations in 2016. The students responded to Members’ questions of clarification. ENV 15-94 Moved Guy/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the presentation from North Street School. CARRIED
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Report No 15-256 This item provided Members with the Environmental Education progress report for the period 1 October to 27 November 2015. Mrs Thomas (Environmental Educator) took Members through the report and highlighted the number of Waiora sessions conducted, and commented on inter-district early childhood education workshops hosted by the Enviroschool facilitators for the Manawatu and Palmerston North/Tararua districts. She noted the positive feedback received from Conservation Week Challenge Day held at Totara Reserve. Mrs Thomas responded to Members’ questions about the teams capacity to continue to deliver the Enviroschools programme, and she commented on discussions held with Mr Warick Warwick Meyer, Horowhenua District Council to discuss the Enviroschools Programme.
Page 8
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
ENV 15-95 Moved Pearce/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 15-256. CARRIED
PUBLIC SPEAKING RIGHTS Ms Taueki (Muaupoko Cooperative Society) spoke about the Levin Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and asked for clarification about the resource consents granted to the Horowhenua District Council. She spoke of the significant effects from a previous overflow from the WWTP (1998) and found it disturbing to find that a consent had now been granted for a term of 20 years, under discretionary activity, without any consultation, and without determining any cultural effects. She expressed concern at the possibility for the WWTP to again overflow. The Chief Executive undertook to investigate the queries around process and respond accordingly.
Messrs Hurunui and Ketu (Ngati Whakatere) referred to the Rural Advice and Regulatory Management Activity Report No. 15-257 specifically paragraph 11.2 (a), Shannon Wastewater Treatment Plant which they believed was incorrect. They tabled a paper entitled “Summary of Archaeological Assessment and Report for Velvaleen Farm SWWTP as at 26 November 2015”, and highlighted page 2. They requested that an Archaeological Assessment Report be undertaken on Velvaleen Farm along with a Cultural Impact Report, and that full consultation be undertaken with Ngati Whakatere. The Chair said a response to matters raised would be provided by Management.
Mr Andrews represented Shannon Progressive Association. Mr Andrews expressed his views about the consent non-compliance of the Shannon Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and requested that an abatement notice be issued to Horowhenua District Council in regard to breaches to their consent. He believed a lack of consideration had been shown around cultural sites of significance. He also requested that a special meeting be organised for stakeholders to air their concerns. The Chief Executive and Dr Peet (Group Manager Strategy & Regulation) responded to Members’ questions about issues raised. It was explained that as the consent holder, Horowhenua District Council (HDC) was responsible for implementation of the Shannon WWTP consent conditions. Horizons Regional Council’s (HRC) role was as a regulatory authority to issue consents.
Cr Feyen (Horowhenua District Council) tabled a letter from Mr Robert Ketu, Te Roopu Taiao o Ngati Whakatere, dated 2 November 2015. The letter was addressed to the Chief Executive, Horizons Regional Council, and Mayor Brendan Duffy, Horowhenua District Council. The letter was in regard to the “Shannon Wastewater Treatment Plant” in which a request was made for an abatement notice to be issued for the Shannon WWTP due to the consent conditions not being met. He referred to the importance of a Cultural Impact Assessment Report and an Archaeological Assessment Report, along with the importance of undertaking full communication with stakeholders. Cr Feyen noted that work at the Velvaleen Farm site had ceased and asked for an explanation. Cr Feyen responded to Members’ questions of clarification.
Page 9
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
RURAL ADVICE AND REGULATORY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY - OCTOBER TO NOVEMBER 2015 Report No 15-257 This report updated Members on regulatory issues for the period October to November 2015. It also included information on Rural Advice Activity as that related to implementation of land use consents for intensive agriculture. The report was introduced by Dr Peet (Group Manager Strategy and Regulation). Mr Bevin (Regulatory Manager) guided Members through the detail of the report. The Chief Executive, Dr Peet and Mr Bevin answered Members’ questions raised by the public speakers regarding issues with the Levin and Shannon Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) resource consents. In discussing the responsibilities of Horizons Regional Council as a consent authority to issue and enforce consent conditions, it was explained that HRC only had the power to enforce and invoke what was in the consent conditions. Dr Peet emphasised that HRC did not have the regulatory authority to enforce commissioning of an Archaeological Assessment Report, and Mr Bevin explained the consent conditions associated with the Cultural Assessment Report. The approach taken by HRC officers was to encourage HDC, as the consent holder, to undertake the necessary conversations with the community. Dr Peet commented on the historic non-compliance issues associated with the Levin (WWTP) and explained how they had been addressed. Mr Bevin responded to Members’ questions about progress with nutrient management provisions, monitoring results of total Chromium concentrations by Rangitikei District Council associated with the Marton WWTP, and explained the breakdown of non-compliances by consent area, what they related to and how they were monitored. In discussing the changing versions of Overseer model and associated uncertainty, the Chief Executive explained the improvements being made with reduced nitrogen levels, and noted that Overseer was a complex tool. Dr Roygard (Manager Freshwater & Science) responded to questions about the Ministry for the Environment funding from the Clean-up Fund Project allocated to the Shannon WWTP. ENV 15-96 Moved Guy/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 15-257 and Annexes. CARRIED
BIOSECURITY AND HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRESS REPORT Report No 15-258 The purpose of this item was to introduce to Members of Council’s Environment Committee, the Habitat Protection and Biosecurity progress reports for the period 31 October 2015. The item also summarised the key points and operational highlights contained within the report. Mr Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental Management) introduced the report and apologised on behalf of Department of Conservation representatives who were unable to attend. Mr Martyn (Environmental Manager-Biosecurity and Biodiversity) updated Members about the walking track upgrades at Totara Reserve and said stage one would be completed before Christmas with stage two of the operation to be completed after Christmas. Cr McKellar updated Members on discussions to progress the construction of a new bridge crossing within the Reserve. Mr Martyn responded to Members’ questions regarding the growth of rabbit numbers in the Mount Bruce area, and the concerns expressed about the possibility of predators being forced to switch prey, as a result of traps in place to kill rabbits. He explained the buffer zones and trapping in place to protect the Reserve.
Page 10
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Cr Guy left the meeting at 11.25am Mr Mitchell (Group Manager Environmental Management) said the interim Governance Group for Te Apiti had agreed that an Incorporated Society be set up with a view to have an Operational Plan in place by 1 July 2016.
Cr McKellar left the meeting at 11:29am
Mr Martyn explained the role of Horizons Regional Council to provide advice to help landowners to deal with their particular pest issue, and the intent of the “good neighbour” rule as set out in the new Pest Plan. ENV 15-97 Moved Keedwell/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 15-258 and Annex. CARRIED
FRESHWATER & SCIENCE REPORT Report No 15-259 The purpose of this item was to introduce Members of Council’s Environment Committee, to the Freshwater and Science Progress report for the period 1 September to 31 October 2015. Dr Roygard (Manager Freshwater & Science) introduced and spoke to the Freshwater Management section. He explained the struggle to achieve fencing projects and suggested more advertising may be necessary to get the message out that fencing was available. Cr McKellar returned to the meeting at 11.45pm He noted that a draft of the Manawatu River Accord Action Plan renewal would be presented at the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum on 17 December 2015, and he updated Members on a recent announcement from Government on funding for the Lake Horowhenua Clean-Up Fund and outlined the projects included in the application. He responded to questions of clarification relating to Mr Dan Bloomer’s report about “Project Progress Report 2, Integrated Storm Water Management Plan for the Arawhata Sub-Catchment”. Dr Roygard provided a summary of the Groundwater and Water Allocation activities and spoke about a collaborative research programme with Massey University to investigate the transport and fate of nutrients from farms to the waterways in the Tararua and Rangitikei catchments. He responded to questions of clarification about the frequency of State of the Environment reporting from Central Government, progress on the renewal of consent holders in the Upper Manawatu for irrigation consents that were due to expire over 2016, and explained the data and monitoring relating to the state and trend of river water quality at recreational sites.
The meeting adjourned at 12.00pm The meeting reconvened at 12.45pm Cr Guy returned to the meeting at 12.45pm
In response to Members’ questions, Dr Roygard explained the water quality monitoring programme and referred to the map on page 106 which contained the sites regularly visited for
Page 11
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
contact recreation sampling. Ms Clark (Senior Scientist-Water Quality) responded to Members’ questions about Project 1: Sources of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment in the Mangatainoka Catchment, and questions about the data showing the monitoring sites and associated trends for total oxidised nitrogen, ammoniacal nitrogen, Escherichia coli, visual clarity and turbidity. Dr Roygard explained the approach taken to identify sources of contamination within streams, and there was discussion around whether there was a need to investigate any potential leakage from septic tanks. Ms Clark spoke to a PowerPoint presentation on the State and Trends of River Quality in the Manawatu–Wanganui Region. The presentation included data from the national analysis from the Minister for the Environment (MfE) report ‘Environment Aotearoa 2015’, and data for the LAWA analysis from an update on the state and trends for water quality completed by the regional sector and its partners, released in September 2015. Ms Clark and Dr Roygard responded to Members’ questions regarding the presentation findings. The Chief Executive (CE) was pleased to report that the Mangapapa Stream was awarded runner-up for New Zealand’s most improved waterway for dissolved inorganic nitrogen at the New Zealand River Awards, and he acknowledged the efforts of Maree Clark in helping the Morgan Foundation to collate the data for that initiative. He also congratulated Maree Clark as the recipient of a National Award for Science Communication. Dr Roygard explained the project and work which was successful in securing Envirolink Funding, and responded to Member’s questions about air quality monitoring results and the availability of equipment to possibly be used to monitor at different sites throughout the Region. ENV 15-98 Moved Keedwell/McKellar That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 15-259 and Annex. CARRIED
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Mr Mitchell (Group Manger Environmental Management) provided Members with an update on a He Tini Awa Trust meeting. In referring to follow up No. 1 contained in the followup sheet from 14 October, he explained that a donation of $10,000 had been awarded to He Tini Awa for monitoring water quality on the Manawatu River and confirmed that the full amount had been expended. Mr Kelvin Lane would be informed that the funding had been received and the work had been undertaken. Mr Mitchell explained the process for He Tini Awa to formally wind up the Trust by 30 June 2016.
There was discussion around the changing versions of Overseer and the cost involved for the organisation to regularly update consents already granted.
The meeting closed at 1.40pm.
Confirmed
______CHIEF EXECUTIVE CHAIR
Page 12
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-43 Information Only - No Decision Required
MASSEY UNIVERSITY COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMME 6 Item
1. PRESENTATION 1.1 At the request of the Environment Committee, presentations will be provided by Dr. Ranvir Singh and students to provide an update on the collaborative research programme between Horizons and Massey University. 1.2 This work aims to advance our knowledge of the fate and transport of nutrients in Horizons Region, and develop tools to account for the contribution of diffuse nutrient loads to groundwater and surface water in agricultural catchments. Both PhD projects are nearing completion and due for submission during 2016, while the MSc projects have now been submitted. 1.3 Aldrin Rivas’ PhD study investigates the denitrification potential and occurrence in groundwater in the Manawatu catchment. Nitrate leached from agricultural land can be removed by denitrification to harmless dinitrogen (N2) gas in reducing groundwater systems before reaching surface water. This PhD involved experimental work to test denitrification, known as the ‘push-pull test’, at four sites: Palmerston North, Pahiatua, Woodville and Dannevirke. The hydrochemical properties of the shallow groundwater were monitored over 12 months at these sites in addition to push-pull tests being carried out over the summer and winter seasons. 1.4 Ahmed Elwan’s PhD is focussed on modelling the contribution of nitrogen leached from farms to the river load. Accurate estimates of river nutrient loads are required for better management of water quality at a catchment level. In most catchments, there are continuous measurements of river flow but only infrequent measurements of water quality parameters. Therefore a number of methods have been developed to estimate annual river loads using various temporal resolutions of river flow and nutrient concentrations. This work will also be used to quantify the magnitude and spatial variation of the attenuation factor throughout the Tararua Groundwater Management Zone. 1.5 Stephen Collins’ MSc project assesses the nitrogen flow pathways and its potential attenuation in shallow groundwaters of the Lower Rangitikei catchment. Groundwater flow, interactions with the Rangitikei River and groundwater hydrochemical properties were interpreted from field measurements and surveys. Nitrate transformations were estimated using the same method developed by Aldrin Rivas, with push-pull tests conducted at farms in Sanson, Bulls and Santoft. Stephen has submitted his Masters thesis and has subsequently joined Horizons science team. 1.6 Heather Martindale’s MSc study employs a novel method to better understand the interaction between surface water and groundwater. This research, carried out in the Hutt and Mangatainoka Rivers, establishes the potential of radon for measuring groundwater and river water interaction in the New Zealand environment. By more effectively quantifying where groundwater inflows into rivers, there is the potential for better management of nutrient inputs into waterways.
Massey University Collaborative Research Programme Page 13
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council:
a. receives the presentation from Massey University. Item 6 Item
3. SIGNIFICANCE 3.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Abby Matthews Jon Roygard SENIOR SCIENTIST GROUNDWATER FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
ANNEXES There are no attachments for this report.
Massey University Collaborative Research Programme Page 14
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-44 Information Only - No Decision Required
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 7 Item
1. PURPOSE 1.1. The purpose of this item is to provide members of Council’s Environment Committee with an Environmental Education progress report for the period 28 November 2015 to 26 February 2016.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-44.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.
5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with recommendations in this paper.
6. ANNUAL PLAN TARGETS
Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % F/cast 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Enviroschools workshops held 1 5 1 7 24 29% 100% Waiora sessions conducted 3 13 2 18 31 58% 100% Community engagements 4 4 0 8 30 26% 100% 6.1. The measure for Enviroschools workshops held includes workshops run by the Regional Coordinator as well as workshops run by contracted Facilitators. 6.2. The measure for Waiora sessions conducted includes sessions run by the Educator as well as sessions conducted using Horizons Regional Council’s kits without the Educator. 6.3. The measure for community engagements does not include Waiora sessions or Enviroschools workshops. This measure tracks all other events and activities that fall within Environmental Education. 6.4. For further detail on all of the measures see the environmental education summary table.
Environmental Education Page 15
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7. ENVIROSCHOOLS DATA
Districts
Item 7 Item Ruahine Palmerston Ruapehu Wanganui Rangitikei Manawatu Tararua Horowhenua Kindergarten Total North City Association Enviroschools 5 9 5 10 6 3 1 3 42 Friends of 2 2 0 1 6 3 0 5 19 Enviroschools 7.1. There are 42 official Enviroschools spread throughout the Region covering all districts. 7.2. There are 19 Friends of Enviroschools in the Region.
8. ACTIVITY REPORT - WAIORA 8.1. The Educator conducted the following Waiora sessions: one session with Ngapuke School on the Pungapunga River; one session with Westmount School at Kahuterawa Reserve. 8.2. The following schools/groups borrowed a Horizons’ Waiora kit to conduct their own individual water quality testing: Newbury School; Opiki School; North Street School; an after-school programme on the Mangatera Stream in Dannevirke.
9. ACTIVITY REPORT - ENVIROSCHOOLS 9.1. The Regional Coordinator met with the Regional Facilitation Team individually to discuss their Term 1 2016 plans. 9.2. The Regional Coordinator facilitated a whole staff introductory Enviroschools workshop at Parkland Kindergarten. 9.3. The Regional Coordinator had meetings with the following Friends of Enviroschools or potential Friends of Enviroschools: National Park School, Ohakune School, Owhango School, Ngakonui Valley School, Ohura Valley School, St George’s Preparatory School, Love and Learn Care and Education, and Matariki Rudolf Steiner Kindergarten. 9.4. The Regional Coordinator attended the Enviroschools sign unveiling ceremony at Marton Childcare Centre alongside the local Facilitator Ron Fisher. The celebration was well attended by the centre’s families as well as special guest Rangitikei District Mayor Andy Watson. 9.5. New Friends of Enviroschools: Parkland Kindergarten, Hokowhitu Kindergarten, and St George’s Preparatory School.
10. ACTIVITY REPORT - OTHER 10.1. Horizons’ environmental education resource Kokopu Mini Golf was borrowed by Te Wananga o Raukawa for their graduation event. 10.2. The Educator attended the New Zealand Association for Environmental Education’s research symposium and conference held in Auckland. Guest speakers included Rachel Bolstad (from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research), Allison Cook (from the United States of America), and Dame Anne Salmond (University of Auckland). Workshop topics included case studies of communities being involved in environmental education (through citizen science), ways to facilitate and share resources to a rural cluster, advocacy at an early childhood level, and engaging youth in community projects. The conference provided valuable further skills and professional development, as well as networking opportunities with other environmental educators throughout the country.
Environmental Education Page 16
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
11. IN MEMORY OF JAN COX 11.1. It is with great sadness that we acknowledge the passing of the National Manager for Enviroschools Jan Cox. Jan died 26 February while out diving in Owhiro Bay.
Jan began working in the Enviroschools Programme in mid 2000, bringing many years of 7 Item experience in education and a passion for environmental education. In everything she did she gave wholeheartedly to empower young people for a better future. She modelled the kaupapa of sustainability through her words and action. Jan was renowned for the calibre of her work and for her propensity to work tirelessly and far beyond the call of duty. She was always prepared to ‘go the extra mile’ to ensure others were supported and empowered in their work. In the more than 10 years since Jan has been involved in Enviroschools the programme has grown to over 1000 schools supported by 16 regional networks and nearly 100 partner organisations across the country. Jan has mentored, guided and supported this network. Jan’s work has empowered thousands of young people, teachers and Enviroschools staff. She always ensured people felt that their voices were heard, recognised and valued. The nationwide Enviroschools network is stronger and more effective as a result of her dedication, love and skills. As well as being a phenomenal force within the environmental education and Enviroschools sphere, she was also a valued and much loved friend. Mihi nui, aroha nui ki a koe.
Environmental Education Page 17
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
12. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION SUMMARY Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date . A Keep New Zealand Beautiful event at ANZAC Park in
Item 7 Item Palmerston North planned and run as a multi-district event by Target the Palmerston North and Manawatu Facilitators in lieu of 24 workshops held individual Term 3 district workshops. . An inter-district early childhood education workshop planned YTD and run by the Palmerston North and Manawatu Facilitators. Enviroschools 7 workshop held . A regional all day reflections process workshop. . A Term 4 Manawatu workshop run by the Manawatu Facilitator. NOTE: workshops run by . A Term 4 Palmerston North workshop run by the Palmerston Regional Coordinator North Facilitator. unless otherwise stated . A Term 4 Wanganui workshop run by the Wanganui Facilitator. . A Term 4 Rangitikei workshop run by the Rangitikei Facilitator. .One session with Levin Intermediate at Gladstone Reserve. .One session with North Street School on the Makino Stream. .One session with Whangaehu School on the Whangaehu River. Target .Four sessions with Aokautere School on an unnamed stream 31 sessions conducted that runs through the school grounds. .Four sessions with Ross Intermediate School at Ruamahunga Waiora YTD Park. 18 sessions conducted .Three further session with Ross Intermediate School at Waitoetoe Park. .Two sessions with Clifton School on the Rangitikei River. .One session with Ngapuke School on the Pungapunga River. .One session with Westmount School at Kahuterawa Reserve. .Shannon School in support of their native tree project. .Two interactive water conservation sessions with Fairfield School in support of Junior Neighbourhood Support – counted Target as one community engagement. 30 Community .Four interactive water conservation sessions with Taitoko School Community engagements in support of Junior Neighbourhood Support – counted as one engagements community engagement. YTD .River Journey with Feilding Girl Guides. 8 community engagements .Kimbolton School’s Green-Gold whole school reflection. .Sustainability sessions with Central Normal School. .Bushy Park’s Education Day for Conservation Week. .Challenge Day at Totara Reserve for Conservation Week.
13. SIGNIFICANCE 13.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Helen Thomas ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATOR
Ally Koehler MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
ANNEXES There are no attachments to this report.
Environmental Education Page 18
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-45 Information Only - No Decision Required
DISTRICT ADVICE UPDATE 8 Item
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This report is to inform Members of the District Advice activities carried out over the eight month period from 1 July 2015 to 29 February 2016. The previous District Advice update was provided by Coordinator District Advice, Lisa Thomas prior to departing on maternity leave, covering the six month period from 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2015.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-45 and Annexes.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. The coordination of this function is part of the role of the Coordinator District Advice and is included in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan under the Community Relationships Activity.
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item. Therefore, Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.
5. BACKGROUND 5.1. The Coordinator District Advice is responsible for responding to requests for information from members of the public to inform land valuations, insurance matters, prospective purchases and hazard risk for new developments and activities. Coordinator District Advice also provides comments and advice in relation to building consent applications and subdivision applications to Territorial Authorities in our Region. These comments include any hazard information that we hold for the property, advice on consents that may be required from Horizons, as well as general information on Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) requirements for developments that may occur on the property in the future. 5.2. Coordinator District Advice also coordinates Horizons’ responses to draft and proposed Plan Changes that are notified by Territorial Authorities within our Region.
6. INFORMATION REQUESTS 6.1. Over the 8 month reporting period 1 July 2015 - 29 February 2016, a total of 261 informal and 173 formal information requests have been responded to compared with a total of 216 informal and 108 formal information requests for the previous six month reporting period, 1 January - 30 June 2015. 6.2. In comparing this six month period with the previous, it shows a total of 193 information and 137 formal information requests were responded to during 1 July 2015-31 Dec 2015. This essentially shows that whilst the number of formal/informal requests fluctuate, the overall total number of enquiries has remained about the same. 6.3. Figure 1 illustrates the number of enquiries responded to over the past eight month period (1 July 2015-29 February 2016), by property location.
District Advice Update Page 19
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 8 Item
Figure 1: Requests by Property Location
6.4. Based on Figure 1, the greatest number of customer enquiries was for properties within the Manawatu District, followed by Palmerston North and the Horowhenua. The trends of the current three month period (1 January – 31 March 2016) are tracking similarly to the previous three month reporting periods, with one month to go.
Figure 2: Requests by Type
6.5. Figure 2 shows the types of information that has been requested in the last eight month period. The majority of requests were for general property and flood information that Horizons holds. The majority of formal requests from territorial authorities were in the form of requests for comment on subdivision applications and recommended minimum floor
District Advice Update Page 20
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
levels for building consents for new dwellings. ‘Other’ requests sought various advice for earthworks, small dams, culverts and drainage channels.
7. DISTRICT PLAN UPDATES Item 8 Item 7.1. The following is a brief update on Horizons involvement in recent draft and proposed Plan Changes (PC) that have been prepared by Territorial Authorities in our Region.
Horowhenua 7.2. We have not received notice of any proposed plan changes during the reporting period.
Manawatu 7.3. The review of the Manawatu District Plan is scheduled for completion by the end of November 2017. Three plan changes are proposed to be publically notified in May 2016 covering the topics of Designations, the Industrial Zone (including an extension of this zone in the Kawakawa Road area) and District-wide Rules (including noise, signage and relocated buildings). 7.4. Horizons provided the Manawatu District Council with Notice of Requirement applications for new designations which will cover all of Horizons Lower Manawatu, Te Kawau and Tangimoana flood control scheme assets in 2013. All of these flood control and drainage assets are existing. However, having them designated within the District Plan will better alert Plan Users to their location and will also allow Horizons to undertake more maintenance activities without having to apply for District Council consent. 7.5. The Manawatu District Council is seeking to extend the existing industrial area around Kawakawa Road (Growth Precinct 5). Our involvement to date has included discussions around how additionally generated stormwater is to be detained within the extension area so that it does not result in increased flows to the Taonui Basin. We also made a submission on a Notice of Requirement to designate a new link road that will join Turners Road and Kawakawa Road, which will facilitate development of this area. A copy of this submission is attached as Annex A. 7.6. While the review of the District-wide rules is unlikely to affect Horizons activities, we will review this proposed plan change when it is notified and determine whether to make a submission. 7.7. Horizons provided feedback on the proposed approach for the District Plan chapters that have a rural focus, including natural hazards, the coastal environment and outstanding natural features and landscapes in June 2015. A copy of this feedback was included in Annex A in the in the District Advice Update to the Environment Committee on 12 August 2015. 7.8. Horizons has been assisting the Manawatu District Council with their review of the natural hazards chapter of the District Plan. We met with Manawatu District Council staff on 16 February 2016 to share our base-map and to discuss their proposed approach to managing natural hazards and its alignment with the One Plan objectives and policies. The Manawatu District Council is proposing to introduce flooding and tsunami hazard overlays to the District Plan maps and to regulate new occupied structures and critical infrastructure in these overlay areas. 7.9. Our assistance with this Natural Hazards Plan Change so far has included the following: A review of the draft Natural Hazards Background Report that forms the basis for the natural hazard provisions (September 2015);
District Advice Update Page 21
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Preparation of a base-map that incorporates all of our modelled 0.5% AEP flood information as well as our indicative flood information and observed flooding from past events (end February 2016);
Item 8 Item Comments on a draft natural hazards fact sheet for public consultation (22 February 2016); Feedback on the draft planning provisions (22 February 2016). 7.10. The Manawatu District Council will prepare individual maps for those land owners within the proposed natural hazard overlays later this year. Horizons staff may be asked to assist with explaining the natural hazard information at community committee meetings and public open days later in the year. Hearings are likely to be held in mid to late 2017.
Palmerston North City Council 7.11. The PC15 Hearings were held at the end of 2015. Our involvement in these Hearings was as follows: PC15A – Rural Subdivision Our submission was generally in support of PC15A, but sought some amendments relating to the management of onsite wastewater. The Reporting Officer (David Murphy) recommended that the Hearings Panel accept the changes we sought through our submission. Horizons therefore withdrew its request to be heard at the Hearing but tabled a letter of support for the officer’s recommendations. A copy of Horizons’ tabled letter is attached as Annex B to this report.
PC15B – Windfarms and Landscapes Horizons’ submission (paragraphs 25-33) generally supported the approach taken in PC15B but raised a number of points in relation to the management of effects on landscapes. In particular, Horizons sought a clearer alignment between the proposed provisions and One Plan Policy 6-6. We generally supported the Reporting Officer’s recommendations and therefore tabled a letter in lieu of speaking at the Hearing. A copy of the tabled letter is attached as Annex C to this report.
PC15C – Boundary Change Area Horizons’ submission was principally focused on the designation of flood protection assets in the Boundary Change Area, to ensure that plan users will be aware of their location before carrying out any activity that might compromise their effectiveness. While we still has some concerns with the way that our flood control designations are represented on the District Plan maps, we are satisfied that the maps will provide enough information to make plan users aware of the presence flood protection assets and the need to consult with Horizons. Horizons tabled the attached letter in Annex D in lieu of speaking at the Hearing.
PC15D – Natural Hazards Horizons was represented at this Hearing by myself (Coordinator District Advice), Pen Tucker (Horizons Policy Analyst) and Peter Blackwood (Manager Investigations and Design). Copies of Pen and Peter’s hearings evidence are attached as Annex E and F respectively. We supported the majority of the reporting officer’s recommendations, except for the rules relating to new buildings and structures in potentially flood prone areas. We sought a new restricted discretionary activity rule for those areas that have not yet been modelled, but are found through site-specific assessment to be at risk in a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood event. This request was rejected on the basis that there is
District Advice Update Page 22
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
currently insufficient information to map these potentially floodable areas with certainty.
Horizons Manager Investigations and Design and Horizons Policy Analyst met with
the Reporting Officer (Rowan Sapsford) and City Planner (David Murphy) on 8 Item 28 October 2015 and agreed to an approach which will address the majority of Horizons’ concerns. This proposal was to insert a performance standard in permitted activity Rule 9.5.5, requiring that new dwellings in the rural zone have a finished floor level of 0.9m above the computed 2% (1 in 50 year) AEP flood level. As outlined in Peter’s evidence (Annex F), 0.5% AEP flood levels are generally around 0.4m to 0.45m higher than the 2% AEP level on most floodplains. This performance standard will therefore provide for a finished floor level that includes reasonable freeboard above the 0.5% AEP flood level, without the need for a detailed flood assessment as part of a resource consent process.
Horizons sought inclusion of a performance standard for new non-habitable structures on production land to ensure that they do not divert flood water onto an existing occupied structure. This request was rejected but through discussions with Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) staff we have agreed to an alternative approach which will satisfy most of Horizons’ concerns. We have agreed to a standard requiring a 20 metre separation distance from existing occupied structures, providing a further amendment is added which sets a maximum building width of 15m across the overland flow path. The rationale for this further amendment is included in the evidence from Horizons Manager Investigations and Design (Annex F). In brief, these standards will reduce the likelihood of diverted flood waters increasing flood levels at existing occupied structures.
PC15E – North East Industrial Zone and Extension Area Horizons’ submission generally supported the Plan Change but sought some amendments in relation to the management of stormwater. Having reviewed the Officers Report, we were satisfied that the recommended amendments provide sufficient clarity for Plan Users that PNCC expects developments to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the climate change adjusted 1% AEP storm. This will ensure that stormwater discharges do not cause or exacerbate flooding downstream, particularly in the Taonui Basin. Horizons therefore withdrew its wish to be heard at the Hearing and instead tabled evidence. A copy of this tabled evidence is attached as Annex G.
PC15G – Network Utilities and matters deferred from the PC15D Hearing (Network utilities and critical infrastructure in flood prone areas) Horizons’ submission generally supported the approach taken to utilities in Section 23 of the District Plan. We tabled evidence in lieu of speaking at the Hearing. A copy of our tabled evidence is attached as Annex H. Horizons requested a change in the activity status of Rule 7.15.1.1, from Controlled to Restricted Discretionary. The rule provides for subdivisions in the Flood Protection Zone which includes both the Flygers Line Floodway, and areas considered flood prone as defined in the One Plan. Horizons’ concerns related to the inability for PNCC to decline subdivision consent if the Controlled Activity status is retained, regardless of how the proposal aligns with One Plan Policy 9-3. This is discussed further in Horizons’ letter in Annex H.
District Advice Update Page 23
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
PC15H – Airport Zone Horizons was represented at this Hearing by Peter Blackwood, Manager
Item 8 Item Investigations and Design and myself, Coordinator District Advice. A copy of Peter’s evidence is attached as Annex I.
Horizons primary concern was that additional stormwater generated by the development of the Airport Zone may be discharged from the site rather than being connected to reticulated stormwater services. We requested that all developments achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP storm so that additional stormwater generated does not cause or exacerbate flooding of any other property, including the Taonui Basin. Horizons staff expressed these concerns to Palmerston North Airport Ltd representatives and PNCC staff at a meeting held at the PNCC Office on Friday 21 March 2014. PNCC’s Stormwater Asset Engineer (John McCartin) considers that any issues related to stormwater management can be dealt with as part of the resource consenting process. Horizons preference was that this be addressed at the planning stage for the Airport Zone in anticipation of this future development. 7.12. Once we have received the decisions from the Hearings Panels for these Plan Changes we will review them and determine whether we need to make any appeals. We will keep you updated as we receive correspondence from PNCC.
Rangitikei District Council 7.13. Horizons has been advised that the Rangitikei District Council (RDC) is undertaking a broad suite of plan changes to address errors and omissions. Some of the proposed changes relate to natural hazards management, including refinement of the flood mapping for Hunterville and Bulls, making new houses in the Taihape west slip zone a non-complying activity and removing the landslide, active fault, liquefaction and ground shaking hazards from the current rule on the basis of the poor quality of the existing data sets. 7.14. Horizons staff met with the RDC’s Policy Planner and Consultant on 4 February 2016. RDC’s proposed approach to development in flood-prone areas aligns well with the policy direction of the One Plan. We are also satisfied with the proposed approach to other hazards, given the quality of information currently available. 7.15. Horizons and RDC staff are looking to work together to refine the flood hazard layer associated with the Porewa Stream where it passes through Hunterville. RDC is also looking to refine the indicative flood layer associated with the Rangitikei River where it passes alongside the Bulls Township prior to notification. 7.16. The proposed provisions will be taken to a Council meeting at the Rangitikei District Council on 29 February 2016 for approval to proceed with public notification of the proposed Plan Change.
Ruapehu District Council 7.17. We have not received notice of any proposed plan changes during the reporting period.
Tararua District Council 7.18. As noted in the District Advice Update report to the Environment Committee in August 2015, the Tararua District Council is looking to undertake a ‘tidy-up/update’ plan change to the operative District Plan. This Plan Change will include those matters that they must give effect to under the One Plan, including earthworks, indigenous vegetation (in relation to
District Advice Update Page 24
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Policy 6-1), outstanding natural features and landscapes, minimum lot sizes for on-site wastewater disposal, natural hazard identification and coastal zone hazard management. 7.19. Horizons Coordinator District Advice and Policy Analyst met with the Tararua District
Council’s Senior Planner and Consultant Planner in relation to a number of matters for a Item 8 Item ‘tidy-up’ plan change to the operative District Plan on 28 July 2015. We have not been advised of when this Plan Change is likely to be publically notified but will keep you informed as we receive more information on this.
Wanganui District Council 7.20. The Wanganui District Council notified Proposed Plan Changes 40 – 45 to the Wanganui District Plan on 18 July 2015. These Proposed Plan Changes included the following topics: PC40 – Financial Contributions PC41 – Noise PC42 – Signage PC43 – District Wide Rules PC44 – Network Utilities, Parking, Loading and Vehicle Crossings PC45 – Natural Environment
7.21. Horizons made a submission to Proposed Plan Changes 43, 44 and 45 on 29 June 2015. A copy of this submission was attached as Annex C to the Environment Committee Report on 12 August 2015. Horizons also made a further submission to this Plan Change (29 July 2015). A copy of this further submission is attached as Annex J to this report. This further submission supported in part the submission from Wanganui Federated Farmers of New Zealand. It supported their proposed additions to Rule 10.6.1 to allow as permitted activities the fencing of waterways, planting of riparian margins, and installation of stock crossings, for the purpose of improving water quality, and enhancing riparian and in-stream indigenous biodiversity habitat. Such provisions will enable the continuation of Horizons’ freshwater and biodiversity programmes, such as the work currently being carried out alongside the Matarawa Stream and Riri a Te Hori Wetland, and other enhancement works supported by Environmental Grants. 7.22. The Hearing for PC43 - 45 is scheduled for 17 March 2016. 7.23. Horizons provided feedback on the draft provisions and maps that will form the Outstanding Natural Landscapes Plan Change to the Wanganui District Plan on 1 September 2015. A copy of this feedback is included as Annex K of this report. Horizons supported the expert-based approach to spatially identify Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL’s). One of our main concerns was that mapped ONL’s appeared to overlap with our SLUI areas. The draft provisions were quite restrictive and could potentially limit some of our SLUI activities within the overlapping area. Horizons has since provided shape files for SLUI activities to the Wanganui District Council so they can overlay and compare them against the surveyed area in the Landscape Assessment. We will then work with the Wanganui District Council to ensure that SLUI activities are appropriately provided for through this Plan Change. 7.24. We received a letter from the Wanganui District Council on 5 October 2015 advising that the notification of the Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Landscapes of High Amenity plan change (PC48) has been suspended pending additional work with iwi representatives to better understand the landscape from a hapu perspective. 7.25. Wanganui District Council failed to notify Horizons of Proposed Plan Change 47 – Land Stability Assessment Area (Stage 3) – Paterson St/Roberts Ave and Mowhanau. Horizons only became aware of this Plan Change after the close of submissions. However, having reviewed the documents, we are satisfied with the approach being taken by the Wanganui District Council with respect to this plan change. The Hearing is scheduled for 16 March 2016.
District Advice Update Page 25
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
8. SIGNIFICANCE 8.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and
Engagement. Item 8 Item Ashleigh Gulliver Ged Shirley COORDINATOR DISTRICT ADVICE GROUP MANAGER REGIONAL SERVICES AND INFORMATION
ANNEXES A Horizons Submission on NOR to Designate Turners link Road B Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15A Rural Subdivision C Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15B Windfarms and Landscapes D Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15C Boundary Change Area E Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15D Natural Hazards - Pen Tucker F Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15D Natural Hazards - Peter Blackwood G Horizons Submission on PNCC PC 15 E North East Industrial Zone H Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15G Utilities I Horizons Submission on PNCC PC15H Airport Zone J Horizons Further Submission on WDC PC45 K Horizons Feedback on WDC Outstanding Natural Landscapes
District Advice Update Page 26
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
2 February 2016
8 Item Principal Planner File ref: RAI 02 02 Manawatu District Council 2016 Private Bag 10 001 AP FEILDING 4743
Dear Lynette
HORIZONS SUBMISSION ON NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A LINK ROAD – TURNERS ROAD TO KAWAKAWA ROAD, FEILDING
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Notice of Requirement (NOR) for the designation of a link road extending from Turners Road to Kawakawa Road, Feilding.
Horizons Regional Council has no major concerns with the designation itself. However, we hold
modelled flood information for a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event that may be of relevance in the assessment of this NOR. At the time the road is constructed, Horizons also has an interest in the management of stormwater and floodwater flow paths and the extent of earthworks.
Please find attached a copy of Horizons 0.5% AEP flood modelling for this area. Our current
modelling suggests there will be some shallow flows and ponding in the vicinity of the road AnnexA extension. Modelled 0.5% AEP flood flow paths that cross the proposed road extension will need to be provided for so as to not exacerbate flooding of land adjacent to the road in a 0.5% AEP flood event, as per One Plan Rule 14-18. If the road is raised above general ground level and cuts off any overland flow paths, then those on the upstream end may be adversely affected in a 0.5% AEP flood event. Provision for modelled flood flow paths will ensure that there is not increased ponding of flood water against the road during a 0.5% AEP flood (as required by One Plan Rule 14-18). Stormwater management can be detailed at the time of the Outline Plan.
The application notes that a detailed road design will be forwarded to Horizons for comment before the Outline Plan is lodged and Horizons welcomes the opportunity to discuss this further. I understand that Manawatu District Council is currently working with Horizons to ensure hydrologic neutrality will be maintained for discharges to the Taonui Basin. Given the lack of capacity for Taonui Basin to accommodate any increase in flood flows, the additional stormwater generated by the roading will need to be 100% mitigated.
As also noted in the application, consent for earthworks may be required for land disturbance associated with the construction of the road. Horizons can confirm any resource consents requirements at the time the Outline Plan is prepared for the construction of the road.
We do not seek any specific changes to this NOR application. However, the requiring authority will need to consult with Horizons at the time of Outline Plan preparation to ensure that stormwater and flood flows are appropriately managed in accordance with the One Plan, and that any necessary resource consents are obtained from Horizons prior to the construction of the road extension.
District Advice Update Page 27
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
We wish to be heard in support of this submission. If others make a similar submission we will
consider presenting a joint case with them at the hearing.
Please do not hesitate to contact me (email: [email protected] or DDI: (06) 9522
Item 8 Item 908) if you would like to discuss or clarify any aspect of this submission.
Yours sincerely
Ashleigh Gulliver COORDINATOR DISTRICT ADVICE
AnnexA
District Advice Update Page 28
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
23 November 2015
Hearings Panel 8 Item Plan Change 15A File ref: RAI 04 03 Palmerston North City Council 2015/05873 AG:KMW Private Bag 11034 Palmerston North 4410 BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] [email protected] Dear Panel
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – PLAN CHANGE 15A, RURAL SUBDIVISION
Thank you for advising Horizons Regional Council of the Hearing of Submissions to Plan Change 15A-H.
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Horizons does not wish to appear at the Plan Change 15A (PC15A) Rural Subdivision Hearing, but does wish to provide a brief response to David Murphy’s Statement of Evidence, dated 9 October 2015.
Horizons submission generally supports PC15A but sought some minor amendments in relation to the management of onsite wastewater. Other amendments sought as part of PC15A in our submission have been addressed at the hearings for Plan Changes
15A Rural General, 15D Flood Hazard and 15G Utilities. AnnexB
I have reviewed David Murphy’s Statement of Evidence for PC15A. I note that Mr Murphy has recommended that the changes we sought in our submission be accepted. I request that the Commissioners accept this recommendation.
Horizons wishes to withdraw its request to be heard at the hearing, but thanks the Hearing Panel for the opportunity to provide this additional written statement.
Although Horizons does not wish to appear at the Hearing, I (or any other relevant Horizons specialist staff member) will do so if the members of the Panel consider our appearance would assist them in their deliberations.
Yours sincerely
Ashleigh Gulliver COORDINATOR DISTRICT ADVICE
District Advice Update Page 29
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
24 November 2015
8
Item Hearings Panel File ref: RAI 04 03 Plan Change 15B 2015/05873 Palmerston North City Council PAT:KMW Private Bag 11034 Palmerston North 4410 BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected]
Dear Panel
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – PLAN CHANGE 15B, WIND FARMS AND LANDSCAPES
Thank you for advising Horizons Regional Council of the Hearing of Submissions to Plan Change 15A- H. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Horizons does not wish to appear at the Plan Change 15B (PC15B) Wind Farms and Landscapes Hearing, and to provide a brief response to Helen Marr’s Statement of Evidence dated 21 October 2015.
Horizons’ submission (paragraphs 25-33) generally supported the approach taken in PC15B but raised a number of points in relation to the management of effects on landscapes. In particular, we sought a clearer alignment between the proposed provisions and One Plan Policy 6-6. We considered that
AnnexC PC15B may not give full effect to Policy 6-6.
I have read Ms Marr’s Statement of Evidence for PC15B and support the amendments to the policy and rule framework recommended in Section 3.5. I agree with Ms Marr’s view that there is scope to include rules in our submission points. Horizons’ submission sought that the provisions to manage all types of significant adverse effects on the Tararua Ranges Landscape Protection area, from all activities, be clarified. We did not request specific amendments and understood that changes might be required to rules and methods as well as policies, to give effect to Policy 6-6. I request that the Commissioners accept Ms Marr’s recommendations in paragraphs 3.86 and 3.87.
Horizons also sought the amendment of Rule 9.8.6 Assessment Criteria (k) and (l) to remove references to maintenance of water quality and impacts on indigenous biodiversity. The reason for our submission was that these matters are a regional function under section 30 of the Resource Management Act and One Plan Policy 6-1 respectively. The inclusion of these matters in the District Plan could lead to consents being issued for the same activities, to manage the same environmental effects, by both PNCC and Horizons; the conditions may not be consistent, making it difficult for the consent holder to comply.
While it is still our preference that these Assessment Criteria be amended, I acknowledge that Rule 9.8.6 is a Discretionary Activity. The rule status provides scope to consider and impose conditions about any relevant matter. The Assessment Criteria essentially function as guidance for the preparation and consideration of a consent application for a windfarm. However, including matters in the Assessment Criteria that are managed through the One Plan’s provisions may be confusing or unnecessarily onerous for applicants.
I also acknowledge that the One Plan does not include rules that would specifically enable the assessment of effects on avifauna from wind farms. The amendments sought are, therefore:
District Advice Update Page 30
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
(k) Ecological impacts, particularly impacts on the Turitea Reserve and Arapuke Forest Park, water bodies, and impacts on indigenous flora and fauna, avifauna and their habitats.
(l) Impacts of earthworks and modifications of natural landforms, including impacts on water
quality and proposed remedial and mitigation issues. 8 Item
I thank the Hearing Panel for the opportunity to provide this additional written statement. Any relevant Horizons specialist staff member would be happy to attend Hearing if the members of the Panel consider their appearance would be of assistance. Please note that I will be on leave from 26 November, in my absence Ashleigh Gulliver, Coordinator District Advice is the contact for any matters arising from this letter.
Yours sincerely
Pen Tucker
POLICY ANALYST
AnnexC
District Advice Update Page 31
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
27 October 2015
Item 8 Item Hearings Panel Plan Change 15C File ref: RAI 04 03 Palmerston North City Council 2015/05873 PAT:KMW Private Bag 11034 Palmerston North 4410 BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected] [email protected] Dear Panel
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – PLAN CHANGE 15C, BOUNDARY CHANGE AREA
Thank you for advising Horizons Regional Council of the Hearing of Submissions to Plan Change 15A-H. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Horizons does not wish to appear at the Plan Change 15C Hearing, and to provide a brief response to Lucy Cooper’s Statement of Evidence, dated 21 September 2015.
The sole purpose of Horizons’ notice of requirement is to protect the integrity of the City’s flood protection infrastructure.
Horizons’ submission was principally focused on the designation of flood protection assets in the Boundary
Change Area, to ensure that plan users will be aware of their location before carrying out any activity that AnnexD might compromise their effectiveness. Horizons sought the insertion of a note in Table 1: Schedule of Designations, and supports Ms Cooper’s recommendation that our submission be accepted.
There were some errors in the mapping of our designations which PNCC and Horizons officers have worked together to resolve. I understand these will be corrected when the final versions of the maps are prepared.
We are not entirely satisfied with the changes to the way our designations have been mapped between Plan Change 10 and Plan Change 15C. This change is very obvious on proposed plan map 12, north and south of Flygers Line. However, I acknowledge that, until a survey of Horizons’ assets is complete and they are mapped accurately, the representation of the location of our assets will be indicative. I am satisfied that the maps will provide enough information to make plan users aware of the presence flood protection assets, and the note in the Table 1 will encourage contact with PNCC or Horizons. This should achieve the purpose of Horizons’ notice of requirement, which is to protect the city’s flood protection infrastructure.
Although Horizons does not wish to appear at the Hearing, I (or any other relevant Horizons specialist staff member) will do so if the members of the Panel consider our appearance would assist them in their deliberations.
Yours sincerely
Pen Tucker POLICY ANALYST
District Advice Update Page 32
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
8 Item STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PENELOPE TUCKER PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL - PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15D: FLOOD HAZARDS
1. Horizons Regional Council (Horizons) thanks Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) for the opportunity to present evidence in support of its submission on Proposed Plan Change 15D (PPC15D), Flood Hazards.
A. Qualifications
2. My name is Penelope Ann Tucker. I hold a Master of Resource and Environmental Planning degree from Massey University, and have seven years experience in the planning profession
as an employee of Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (trading as Horizons Regional AnnexE Council). Initially I was employed as a Consents Planner, for almost two years. In April 2010 I joined the Policy and Strategy Team, I have been involved in the One Plan formal planning process and plan implementation and monitoring since then. During that period I have contributed to a number of Horizons’ constituent territorial authorities’ district plan review processes, focusing in particular on the relationship between district plans and the One Plan.
3. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Practice Notes. I agree to comply with this Code of Conduct. Except where I refer to advice or information provided by others, the following comments have been prepared within my area of expertise.
B. Horizons’ response to Rowan Sapsford’s Statement of Evidence
4. I have read Mr Sapsford’s Statement of Evidence and his recommendations in regard to Horizons’ submission points. With the exception of the following matters, I support these recommendations and ask the Hearing Panel to accept them. In particular, I urge the Panel
District Advice Update Page 33
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
to accept the recommendations at paragraph 5.178 in relation to the definition of Safe
Wading Zone and Rule R22.8.2.1(b).
Item 8 Item 5. I note that my comments will not address any of the matters raised by Mr Sapsford in relation to network utilities and critical infrastructure in his Statement of Evidence, as these matters will be addressed at the Hearing for Plan Change 15G: Utilities.
Section 22 General (refer to paragraphs 5.72 to 5.81)
6. Horizons sought the insertion of a new restricted discretionary activity rule for occupied structures or activities in areas assessed as likely to be inundated during a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event. This submission point was opposed in three further submissions, and was rejected by Mr Sapsford in his Statement of Evidence.
7. I acknowledge Mr Sapsford’s comments regarding the shortcomings of the restricted discretionary activity rule requested by Horizons in paragraph 57 of its submission.
AnnexE 8. Yesterday afternoon, Mrs Gulliver, Mr Blackwood and I met with Mr Sapsford and David Murphy, PNCC Planning Manager. We discussed possible options to resolve this issue, and have reached an understanding overnight.
9. The following evidence (paragraphs 10 to 18) focuses on the background to the issue and the reasons for Horizons’ concern.
10. PC15D maps the Flood Protection Zone and Flood Prone Areas overlay, and provides a strong policy and regulatory framework to manage development in these areas. The Zone and the overlay are areas where there is a high level of certainty that they will be flooded in a 1 in 200 year event.
11. It is my understanding that, when the mapping was being developed, areas potentially at risk of being flooded in a 1 in 200 year event were not included in the Zone or the overlay where there was not a high level of certainty that the data was reliable.
12. I acknowledge that this rationale is a reasonable basis for drawing a line on a map. However, I understand from Peter Blackwood (Horizons’ Manager Investigations and
District Advice Update Page 34
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Design) that there are a number of areas in the Rural Zone and Rural Residential Areas not
included in the overlay, where a site investigation would identify a risk of flooding in a 1 in 200 year event. Mr Blackwood will be presenting evidence on this subject. These are areas near rivers, both permanently and intermittently flowing, many of which are not visible on the 8 Item District Plan maps.
13. To give you an example of the extent of the areas affected, Andrew Steffert (Horizons’ Environmental Information Analyst) has used Proposed Map 44 and added the location of other waterways that Horizons has information about. The more detailed mapping shows the Kahuterawa Stream and waterways mapped by Horizons in the course of the Kahuterawa Biodiversity Project, derived from 2011 aerial photographs.
14. The absence of any provisions in the District Plan to manage the effects of flood hazards in areas outside the Zone or overlay raises some serious issues. Of particular concern is the
management of new occupied structures or activities, and increases in the scale of existing
occupied structures or activities. Chapter 9 of the One Plan focuses in part on the avoidance of the effects of natural hazards events on people and property, through the discouragement
of development in areas prone to flooding (see in particular Policy 9-2, attached as ANNEX AnnexE A). This was the reason behind Horizons’ submission.
15. The rules applying to subdivision in the Rural Zone and Rural Residential overlay include the ability to consider natural hazards, and an advice note pointing to PNCC’s ability to make a decision to decline consent under Section 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Horizons’ Co-ordinator District Advice, Ashleigh Gulliver, has informed me that she currently provides an assessment of natural hazard risks for most of the private subdivisions near waterways in Palmerston North free of charge; where flood risk has not yet been modelled, Mr Blackwood carries out a site-specific flood assessment. This is provided in response to either a developer’s request prior to application, or on referral from PNCC. (Mrs Gulliver will describe the service provided by Horizons in her evidence). I understand that it would be these assessments that would inform PNCC’s resource consent decision making with regard to subdivision.
16. What then remains is occupied structures and activities on land that is not being subdivided, outside the Flood Protection Zone or Flood Prone Areas overlay. Mrs Gulliver and Mr Blackwood advise me that they believe they currently provide advice for most of these buildings. It is my understanding that these structures and activities would be a permitted
District Advice Update Page 35
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
activity, with no provision to assess whether the land would be affected by a 1 in 200 year
flood event or to impose any conditions on the structure.
Item 8 Item 17. I acknowledge that there is an ability to consider natural hazards during the building consent process. However, I understand this is constrained by the Building Act 2004 and the Building Code 2012, which together provide for the consideration of only a 2% AEP, or 1 in 50 year event1.
18. Further, Mrs Gulliver, Mr Blackwood and I are in agreement that the mapping of the Flood Protection Zone and Flood Prone Areas overlay may create an impression for plan users that these are the only areas that will be affected. This could lead to a reduction in inquiries to Horizons for site assessments not just for buildings on land outside the mapped areas, but also for subdivisions which would reduce the effectiveness of the existing rural subdivision
provisions.
19. The proposal to insert a performance standard in permitted activity Rule 9.5.5, requiring a
minimum floor height for new dwellings in the Rural Zone will, in my opinion, address the AnnexE majority of Horizons’ concerns in a way that is clear, and not unduly onerous given that an assessment of flood risk forms part of the building consent process also. Mr Blackwood will discuss how the suggested wording for the performance standard was arrived at.
Permitted Activity Rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1 (refer to paragraphs 5.95 to 5.108)
20. Horizons sought an amendment to permitted activity rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1, which provide for non-habitable structures on production land, to include a performance standard ensuring that these structures do not divert flood water onto an existing occupied structure.
1 Section 17 of the Building Act 2004 requires all building work to comply with the Building Code. However, section 18 states that anyone carrying out building work is not required to achieve a performance criteria additional to, or more restrictive, than any performance criteria in the Building Code. Part E1.3.2 of the Building Code states that “surface water, resulting from an event having a 2% probability of occurring annually, shall not enter buildings.”
District Advice Update Page 36
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
21. I generally support the alternative approach proposed by Mr Sapsford, which sets a
separation distance of 20 metre from existing occupied structures. In coming to this view, I have sought the advice of Peter Blackwood, Horizons’ Manager Investigations and Design, who will also speak on this matter. I understand from Mr Blackwood that this setback 8 Item distance will be adequate provided the width of the building across the overland flow path is not greater than 15 metres. Anything wider than this is likely to cause a more significant diversion of water than can be mitigated by a 20 metre setback.
22. I also generally support the proposed Controlled Activity Rule 22.7.2.2 Non Habitable Structures. However, I consider that this rule also needs to specifically exclude non- habitable structures in the Flygers Line Floodway as in Permitted Activity Rule 22.7.1.1. It is important that it is clear that all structures in the Floodway are a Non-Complying Activity under Rule 22.7.3.1.
23. Mr Sapsford has asked Mr Blackwood and me whether there is an alternative configuration of separation distance and structure width that would allow smaller structures to be located closer to existing occupied structures. Mr Blackwood has advised me that locating structures
no more than 1 metre wide across the overland flow path more than 5 metres from any AnnexE existing occupied structure would also mitigate potential diversion of flood flows.
24. I therefore request that the Hearing Panel accepts Mr Sapsford’s recommendations at paragraphs 5.107 and 5.108 of his Statement of Evidence, subject to the following amendments (shown with additional words underlined and deletions struck through) or other agreed wording that provides the same relief:
R22.7.1.1 … (v) Non-habitable structures on production land, provided it is they are not: a. within the Flygers Line Floodway shown on Map 22.7, or and are: b. a. located within more than 20 m of from an existing occupied structure, and are less than 15 m wide across the overland flow path, or c. located more 5 m from an existing occupied structure, and are between 1 m and 15 m wide across the overland flow path.
R22.7.2.2 Non Habitable Structures
District Advice Update Page 37
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
a. Non-habitable structures on production land located outside the Flygers Line
Floodway shown on Map 22.7, and either b. located within more than 20m from an existing occupied structure, and less than Item 8 Item 15 m wide across the overland flow path c. located more than 5 m from an existing occupied structure, and between 1 m and 15 m wide across the overland flow path. …
R22.8.1.1 Permitted Activity (i) Non-habitable structures on production land which provided they are either not: a. not located within 20m of an existing occupied structure, and are less than 15 m wide across the overland flow path or b. not located more than 5 m from an existing occupied structure, and are between 1 m and 15m wide across the overland flow path.
Submissions on notes referring to Horizons’ decision making role relating to flooding (refer to
AnnexE paragraphs 5.159 to 5.173)
25. Horizons’ sought the removal of text in Explanation and Notes in the proposed provisions, which implied that Horizons had a decision making role in PNCC’s consent processes. I support Mr Sapsford’s recommendation regarding replacing these notes, with one exception. I request that the note relating to Rule 22.7.3.1 be retained and amended to draw attention to the Horizons’ designation of the Flygers Line Floodway, as sought in our submission: In respect of these activities within the Flygers Line Floodway designation, the written consent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council will be required.
Submissions on Section 22.8 Flood Prone Areas – Assessment Criteria 22.8.2.1(a)(ii) and (iii) (refer to paragraphs 5.5 to 5.14, pages 51 to 53)
26. Horizons sought amendments to Assessment Criteria (a)(ii) and (iii) of Rule 22.8.2.1.I am comfortable with Mr Sapsford’s recommended amendments to (a)(ii). However, I consider that it (a)(iii) should also be amended to achieve a consistent focus on addressing the hazard, as follows:
District Advice Update Page 38
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
(iii) Whether the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures, including the certainty of the maintenance regime, will achieve protection for address the hazard for the site in a 0.5 AEP (1 in 8 Item 200 year) flood event.
Pen Tucker Policy Analyst, Horizons Regional Council
29 October 2015
AnnexE
District Advice Update Page 39
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
ANNEX A
Policy 9-2: Development in areas prone to flooding
Item 8 Item (a) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or any increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within a floodway* mapped in Schedule J unless:
(i) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area, and (ii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that the adverse effects^ of a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) (1 in 200 year) flood event2 on it are avoided or mitigated, and (iii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that adverse effects^ on the environment^, including the functioning of the floodway, arising from the structure^ or activity during a flood event2 are avoided or mitigated, in which case the structure^ or activity may be allowed.
(b) Outside of a floodway* mapped in Schedule J the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or an increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within an area which would 2 be inundated in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event unless:
(i) flood hazard avoidance* is achieved or the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood hazard is mitigated, or (ii) the non-habitable structure^ or activity is on production land^, or
AnnexE (iii) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area, in any of which cases the structure^ or activity may be allowed.
(c) Flood hazard avoidance* must be preferred to flood hazard mitigation.
(d) When making decisions under Policies 9-2(a) and b(i) regarding the appropriateness of proposed flood hazard mitigation measures, the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must:
(i) ensure that occupied structures have a finished floor or ground level, which includes reasonable freeboard, above the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood level. (ii) ensure that in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 the inundation of access between occupied structures^ and a safe area where evacuation may be carried out (preferably ground that will not be flooded) must be no greater than 0.5 m above finished ground level with a maximum water velocity of 1.0 m/s, or some other combination of water depth and velocity that can be shown to result in no greater risk to human life, infrastructure^ or property*, (iii) ensure that any more than minor adverse effects^ on the effectiveness of existing flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures, including works and structures^ within River and Drainage Schemes, natural landforms that protect against inundation, and overland stormwater flow paths, are avoided,
District Advice Update Page 40
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
(iv) ensure that adverse effects on existing structures^ and activities are avoided
or mitigated, (v) have regard to the likelihood and consequences of the proposed flood hazard mitigation measures failing,
(vi) have regard to the consequential effects^ of meeting the requirements of 8 Item (d)(ii), including but not limited to landscape and natural character, urban design, and the displacement of floodwaters onto adjoining properties*, and (vii) have regard to the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures including the appropriateness and certainty of the maintenance regime.
(e) Within that part of the Palmerston North City Council district that is protected by the Lower Manawatu River Flood Control Scheme to a 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) standard, including the Mangaone Stream stopbank system, additional flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures will generally not be required when establishing any new structure^ or activity or increasing the scale of any existing structure^ or activity.
(f) Despite Policy 9-2(d)(i) and (ii), within that part of the Wanganui central city bounded by Bates Street, Ridgway Street and Victoria Avenue, flood hazard mitigation measures will not be limited to considering flood height and flow but will include such
methods as resilient construction and emergency management systems.
(g) This policy does not apply to new critical infrastructure*.
AnnexE
District Advice Update Page 41
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 8 Item STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER BLACKWOOD PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL - PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15D: NATURAL HAZARDS
1. Thank you for the opportunity to present evidence in support of Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) submission to the Palmerston North City Council’s Proposed Plan Change 15D: Natural Hazards.
A. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
2. My full name is Peter Lindsay Blackwood. I am currently employed as the Manager Investigations and Design at Horizons Regional Council (“Council”). I have held this position since 30 October 2006. For the period from September 1996 to October 2006 I
AnnexF was employed as the Manager Technical Services for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
3. I am qualified with a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) and gained my Engineer’s Registration in 1982. I have thirty-nine years experience in civil engineering, including project management, flood control and drainage (policy, asset management, design and supervision), river management and protection works, coastal hazards (storm surge and wave run-up), environmental engineering, water resources (particularly flood frequency), global warming policy and design, civil design (including bridging), financial analysis, irrigation and power station construction.
4. I have authored or supervised the production of numerous designs and reports on river hydrology and hydraulics, floodplain management, global warming impacts, river alignments and erosion protection works.
5. I have managed or supervised detailed floodplain management studies on the Whakatane-Waimana, Waioeka-Otara, Waikanae and Otaki River Schemes.
District Advice Update Page 42
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
6. I have prepared numerous design reports under the employ of Council including the
following relevant reports: “Lower Whanganui River Flood Protection Investigations
Stage One: Review of the Current Flood Hazard”, “Lower Whanganui River Flood Item 8 Item Protection Investigations Stage Two: Assessment of Flood Mitigation Options”, “Rangitikei River Scheme Review Number 4”, “Horizons Regional Council Flood Protection Scheme Standards Summary Report”, “Non-Scheme Rivers Investigations Prioritising Future Studies” and “Ohakune Flood Protection Investigations Assessment of Flood Mitigation Options”.
7. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and that I agree to comply with it.
B. TECHNICAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO HORIZONS’ SUBMISSION
Development in areas prone to flooding outside the mapped Flood Protection Zone and
Flood Prone Areas overlay (refer to paragraphs 5.72 – 5.90 of Rowan Sapsford’s Statement of Evidence)
8. I have looked at the proposed Plan Maps and confirm that there are areas on Maps 31, AnnexF 32, 38, 39, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51 and 52 where I consider there is a definite risk of inundation in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event.
9. These areas are firstly, near rivers marked on the maps, and not within the mapped Flood Protection Zone. In particular these maps do not show any areas of flood risk from either the Turitea Stream or Kahuterawa Stream. These are large watercourses with catchment areas of 36 square kilometres at the Kahuterawa at Johnstone’s Rata recorder and 42 square kilometres at the Tennent Drive bridges crossing. The respective current 0.5% AEP flood flow estimates at these sites are 193 and 153 cumecs (with the larger flow at the smaller catchment due to hydrological factors).
10. These streams will overflow their banks in flows above their channel capacity, which will vary but is likely around 50 cumecs. Above these flows a significant amount of flow will overflow and flood the surrounding terrain.
11. As an example of the flood risks, a full assessment had to be conducted by consultants on the flood risk from the Turitea Stream to proposed lots on a recent subdivision on
District Advice Update Page 43
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Valley Views Road. In this instance it was very clear that the paddocks and lower
terraces adjoining the stream are vulnerable to flooding in the 0.5% AEP flood.
Item 8 Item 12. Continuing this example it is clearly apparent that there are large areas of land bordering the stream that are vulnerable to flood risks in the 0.5% AEP flood and smaller floods. We do not need a detailed analysis to understand this point – though detailed sums are of course required to confirm safe building levels.
13. Very similar facts of course apply to the Kahuterawa Stream, where significant areas of land have flooded in recent years, including one house in particular in the upper reaches of the stream.
14. Please note in this example I have addressed the flooding from the main stream Turitea and Kahuterawa Streams. However, there are numerous other watercourses shown on the plan plus ephemeral watercourses that have the potential to quite readily flood large areas of land and potentially houses.
15. These areas are not within the mapped Flood Protection Zone, yet obviously significant
areas of land will indeed flood in the 0.5% AEP flood. AnnexF
16. Currently where likely flood risks are identified the assessment is either carried out through the Horizons Regional Council District Advisory Service or, in the case of a large subdivision, at the developer’s expense by consultant advice (as in the Valley Views subdivision case referenced in paragraph 11). Occasionally this advice is achieved through consultancy services provided by Horizons Regional Council.
17. Generally, the sums carried out through the District Advisory Service are completed based on LiDAR generated cross-sections and hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. Where there is no LiDAR coverage a few stream cross-sections and house site levels may require survey. Whilst this does not capture all sites at risk of flooding, it is a substantial improvement on past procedures.
18. Currently the NZ Building Code Document E1 clause E1.3.2 requires that water shall not enter a house in a 2% AEP (1 in 50 year) flood. The Horizons Regional Council One Plan policy is that minimum floor levels are above the 0.5% AEP flood with reasonable freeboard. Essentially this is to allow for the building to enjoy a climate change adjusted 1% AEP standard of flood protection throughout the buildings design life.
District Advice Update Page 44
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
19. Freeboard is a provision for model accuracy, construction tolerances and phenomenon
that may not be explicitly included in the models including debris blockages, super-
elevation of water levels at bends, riverbed aggradation (or degradation), wind effects. Item 8 Item The normal freeboard for residential properties is 0.5m.
20. As a suggested pragmatic and defensible way forward the following approach was concluded at a meeting on 28 October 2015, attended by Messrs Rowan Sapsford and David Murphy (representing Palmerston North City Council) and Penn Tucker, Ashleigh Gulliver and Peter Blackwood (Horizons Regional Council).
21. My advice is that the 0.5% AEP flood levels are generally around 0.4m to 0.45m higher than the 2% AEP levels on most floodplains. For major rivers such as the Manawatu River the quantum is higher. However flooding from this river is included within the mapped Flood Protection Zone. For steep confined rivers the quantum is also greater,
but there are few of these occasions in the Palmerston North City.
22. Therefore, the minimum floor level could be set at 0.4 metres above the 2% AEP level inclusive of 0.5m freeboard. I would expect that generally speaking the added quantum
between the 2% and 0.5% AEP for steep rivers would be covered by the model AnnexF accuracy component within the freeboard provision.
23. Therefore a reasonable decision would be for the minimum floor level to be 0.9m above the computed 2% AEP flood level, with a clear explanatory note that further freeboard is not to be added. This is probably the clearest approach.
Diversion of flood flows into existing structures and activities (refer to paragraphs 5.95 – 5.107)
24. Horizons has sought an amendment to permitted activity rules 22.7.1.1 and 22.8.1.1, which provide for non-habitable structures on production land, to include a performance standard ensuring that these structures do not divert flood water onto an existing occupied structure. This has the potential to elevate flood levels and/or concentrate flood flows resulting in excessive velocities and potentially erosion or other property damage.
25. I generally support the alternative approach proposed by Mr Sapsford, which sets a separation distance of 20 metre from existing occupied structures. This setback distance should normally be adequate provided the width of the building across the
District Advice Update Page 45
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
overland flow path is not greater than 15 metres. Anything wider than this is likely to
cause a more significant diversion of water than can be mitigated by a 20 metre setback.
Item 8 Item 26. I have been asked by Mr Sapsford whether there is an alternative configuration of separation distance and structure width that would allow smaller structures to be located closer to existing occupied structures. Provided structures are no more than 1 metre wide across the overland flow path and more than 5 metres from any existing occupied structure, the potential diversion of flood flows should be reasonably mitigated.
Peter Blackwood MANAGER INVESTIGATIONS AND DESIGN
29 October 2015
AnnexF
District Advice Update Page 46
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
13 October 2015
Hearings Panel 8 Item Plan Change 15 - E File ref: RAI 04 03 2015/ Palmerston North City Council AG:KMW Private Bag 11034
Manawatu Mail Centre BY EMAIL ONLY PALMERSTON NORTH 4410 [email protected] [email protected]
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – PLAN CHANGE 15E, NORTH EAST INDUSTRIAL ZONE AND EXTENSION AREA
Thank you for advising Horizons Regional Council of the Hearing of Submissions to Plan Change 15A-H. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Horizons does not wish to appear at the Plan Change 15 - E Hearing, and to provide a brief response to Jonathan Ferguson-Pye’s Statement of Evidence, dated 1 August.
Horizons’ submission generally supported the Plan Change but sought some amendments in relation to the management of stormwater. I have read and considered Mr Ferguson-Pye’s evidence and response to submissions, and support the AnnexG recommendations made in response to Horizons’ submission, in particular the recommended amendment to Rule 12A.6.2 assessment criteria (d)(i).
We note that Horizons did not specifically request any amendment to Rule 12 A6.2 Performance Standards in its submission. However, our support of these standards depended on the District Plan being clear that stormwater needs to be managed to achieve 100% mitigation of the 1% AEP plus climate change adjusted storm, as set out in NZS4404:2010. We consider that the amendment to Assessment Criteria d(i), in association with supporting Policies 3.5,3.8 and 3.9, provides sufficient clarity that Palmerston North City Council expects development proposals to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 1% AEP plus climate change storm, and therefore avoid adverse effects of stormwater discharges on downstream properties.
The Panel should be aware that if 100% mitigation is not achieved, the resulting discharge of stormwater from the site will require a consent from Horizons. Given the lack of capacity for Taonui Basin to accommodate any increase in flood flows, there is no certainty that consent could be granted due to the potential for significant effects on downstream properties.
The rationale is clearly set out in the explanation proposed for Rule R12.8.5 Braeburn Industrial Area – Construction, External Alteration or Addition to Buildings and Structures assessment criteria (a)(ix) [sic], in Mr Ferguson-Pye’s Statement of Evidence for Proposed Plan Change 15F:
District Advice Update Page 47
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Explanation:
If not appropriately managed, stormwater from the Braeburn Industrial Area has the Item 8 Item potential to exacerbate flooding in the Taonui Basin. For this reason there is a requirement to accommodate all the additional volume of stormwater generated by development in this Zone so as to keep to pre-development stormwater volumes. The event that must be considered when evaluating stormwater detention methods is the 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) event of 72 hour duration, being the critical design event for the Taonui Basin.
Horizons would support the insertion of a similarly worded explanation in Rule 12A.6.2, if the Hearing Commissioners considered such an insertion appropriate.
Although Horizons does not wish to appear at the Hearing, I (or any other relevant Horizons specialist staff member) will do so if the members of the Panel consider our appearance would assist them in their deliberations. Please note we cannot be available on the 15 October 2015 hearing date.
Yours sincerely
AnnexG Ashleigh Gulliver COORDINATOR DISTRICT ADVICE
District Advice Update Page 48
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
10 November 2015
8 Item Hearings Panel File ref: RAI 04 03 Plan Change 15G 2015/05873 Palmerston North City Council PAT:KMW Private Bag 11034 Palmerston North 4410 BY EMAIL ONLY [email protected]
Dear Panel
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY SECTIONAL DISTRICT PLAN REVIEW – PLAN CHANGE 15G, UTILITIES
Thank you for advising Horizons Regional Council of the Hearing of Submissions to Plan Change 15A- H. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that Horizons does not wish to appear at the Plan Change 15G Hearing, and to address the matters deferred from the Hearing for Plan Change 15D, Flood Hazards, relating to network utilities and critical infrastructure.
Horizons’ submission generally supported the approach taken to utilities in Section 23 of the District Plan. Horizons’ made a further submission to Powerco’s submission, which supported the clarification of the relationship between Section 23 and Section 22, Natural Hazards. This matter has been addressed by Rowan Sapsford as part of the Flood Hazards Hearing. I note that Lucy Cooper’s AnnexH Statement of Evidence, dated 12 October 2015, supports the approach taken by Mr Sapsford. This approach provides for utilities (both network utilities and critical infrastructure) within the Flood Protection Zone and Flood Prone Areas to be managed through the provisions in Section 22 in the first instance. I support the proposal to clarify this matter in Section 23 through the insertion of a permitted activity rule (proposed Rule 23.7.1).
With regard to the amendments to Section 22 proposed by Mr Sapsford in his Addendum to S42A Report (dated 9 November), I support the changes shown in Appendix 1. Horizons officers, including Ashleigh Gulliver (Coordinator District Advice), Peter Blackwood (Manager Investigations and Design) and myself, have been involved in the discussions Mr Sapsford refers to in paragraph 6. We are satisfied that the proposed amendments will both generally give effect to One Plan Policy 9-2 and Policy 9-3, and will provide the relief sought by Horizons, with a minor correction: I understand the cross references in Rule 22.8.2.1 should be to “R22.8.1.1 (i) a, b, c or (iii)”.
With regard to new network utilities in Flood Prone Areas other than on production land, I accept that there does not appear to be scope within the submissions to introduce any further change to Rule 22.8.1.1 to provide for these structures.
Horizons also submitted that Rule 7.15.1.1, a controlled activity rule for subdivisions up to 200m2 in the Flood Protection Zone for the purpose of accommodating a network utility, should be amended. We sought that the rule status should be restricted discretionary, with discretion limited to the matters set out in One Plan Policy 9-3. These matters, which refer to critical infrastructure, are that the infrastructure: will not be adversely affected by flood waters or another type of natural hazard; will not cause adverse effects on the environment in the event of a flood or another type of natural hazard event;
District Advice Update Page 49
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
is unlikely to cause a significant increase in scale or intensity of natural hazard events; and
cannot reasonably be located in an alternative location.
I acknowledge that the reference to Policy 9-3, which refers to critical infrastructure, in the submission Item 8 Item was potentially unclear in terms of the relief sought, and that it would have been more appropriate to refer to Policy 9-2, in particular a) and b). Policy 9-2 seeks the avoidance of new structures and activities or increases in the scale of existing structures and activities in both floodways mapped in Schedule J (which includes Flygers Line Floodway) and flood prone areas (the areas which would be inundated in a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) or 1 in 200 year flood event), subject to limited exceptions which are similar to those set out in Policy 9-3 but confined to flood hazard. These exceptions are: In floodways i. there is a functional necessity to locate the structure or activity within such an area; and ii. the structure or activity is designed so the adverse effects of a 0.5% AEP event on it are avoided or mitigated; and iii. the structure or activity is designed so that adverse effects on the environment, including the functioning of the floodway, arising from the structure or activity during a flood event are avoided or mitigated. In flood prone areas
i. flood hazard avoidance is achieved or the 0.5% AEP flood hazard is mitigated; or ii. the non-habitable structure or activity is on production land; or iii. there is a functional necessity to locate the structure or activity within such an area.
A copy of Policy 9-2 is attached to this letter. AnnexH I consider that restricted discretionary status is more appropriate than controlled activity status for Rule 7.15.1.1. The rule provides for subdivisions in the Flood Protection Zone which includes both the Flygers Line Floodway, and areas considered flood prone as defined in the One Plan. Under the rules as proposed by Mr Sapsford, new network utilities in the Floodway will be a non-complying activity under Rule 22.7.3.1. While some new network utilities on production land outside the Floodway are permitted, those that are not will be assessed as at least restricted discretionary activities.
As notified, proposed Rule 7.15.1.1’s controlled activity status does not enable PNCC to decline subdivision consent, including in the Floodway, regardless of the matters set out in One Plan Policy 9-2 and the activity status of the rules relating to the network utility itself. Further, Rule 7.17.1.1 provides for the equivalent activity as a restricted discretionary activity in Flood Prone Areas.
I therefore ask the Panel to amend Rule 7.15.1.1 to restricted discretionary status, with matters of discretion being those provided for in One Plan Policy 9-2. I note that much of the wording of Rule 7.17.1.1 is focused on those matters. I also support the amendment to Rules 7.15.1.1 and 7.15.2.1, clarifying how critical infrastructure is to be managed, proposed by Mr Sapsford in paragraph 5.145 of his Statement of Evidence (16 October 2015).
Although Horizons does not wish to appear at the Hearing, I (or any other relevant Horizons specialist staff member) will do so if the members of the Panel consider our appearance would assist them in their deliberations.
Yours sincerely
District Advice Update Page 50
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Pen Tucker POLICY ANALYST
8 Item Encl: Copy of One Plan Policy 9-2
AnnexH
District Advice Update Page 51
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Policy 9-2: Development in areas prone to flooding (a) The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or any increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within a floodway* mapped in Schedule J Item 8 Item unless: (i) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area, and (ii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that the adverse effects^ of a 0.5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) (1 in 200 year) flood event2 on it are avoided or mitigated, and (iii) the structure^ or activity is designed so that adverse effects^ on the environment^, including the functioning of the floodway, arising from the structure^ or activity during a flood event2 are avoided or mitigated, in which case the structure^ or activity may be allowed. (b) Outside of a floodway* mapped in Schedule J the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must not allow the establishment of any new structure^ or activity, or an increase in the scale of any existing structure^ or activity, within an area which would be inundated in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 unless:
(i) flood hazard avoidance* is achieved or the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood hazard is mitigated, or (ii) the non-habitable structure^ or activity is on production land^, or (iii) there is a functional necessity to locate the structure^ or activity within such an area,
AnnexH in any of which cases the structure^ or activity may be allowed. (c) Flood hazard avoidance* must be preferred to flood hazard mitigation. (d) When making decisions under Policies 9-2(a) and b(i) regarding the appropriateness of proposed flood hazard mitigation measures, the Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must: (i) ensure that occupied structures have a finished floor or ground level, which includes reasonable freeboard, above the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood level. (ii) ensure that in a 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) flood event2 the inundation of access between occupied structures^ and a safe area where evacuation may be carried out (preferably ground that will not be flooded) must be no greater than 0.5 m above finished ground level with a maximum water velocity of 1.0 m/s, or some other combination of water depth and velocity that can be shown to result in no greater risk to human life, infrastructure^ or property*, (iii) ensure that any more than minor adverse effects^ on the effectiveness of existing flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures, including works and structures^ within River and Drainage Schemes, natural landforms that protect against inundation, and overland stormwater flow paths, are avoided, (iv) ensure that adverse effects on existing structures^ and activities are avoided or mitigated, (v) have regard to the likelihood and consequences of the proposed flood hazard mitigation measures failing, (vi) have regard to the consequential effects^ of meeting the requirements of (d)(ii), including but not limited to landscape and natural character, urban design, and the displacement of floodwaters onto adjoining
District Advice Update Page 52
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
properties*, and
(vii) have regard to the proposed ownership of, and responsibility for maintenance of, the flood hazard mitigation measures including the appropriateness and certainty of the maintenance regime.
(e) Within that part of the Palmerston North City Council district that is protected by 8 Item the Lower Manawatu River Flood Control Scheme to a 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) standard, including the Mangaone Stream stopbank system, additional flood hazard avoidance* or mitigation measures will generally not be required when establishing any new structure^ or activity or increasing the scale of any existing structure^ or activity. (f) Despite Policy 9-2(d)(i) and (ii), within that part of the Wanganui central city bounded by Bates Street, Ridgway Street and Victoria Avenue, flood hazard mitigation measures will not be limited to considering flood height and flow but will include such methods as resilient construction and emergency management systems. (g) This policy does not apply to new critical infrastructure*.
AnnexH
District Advice Update Page 53
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 8 Item STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PETER BLACKWOOD PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL - PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 15H: AIRPORT ZONE
1. Thank you for the opportunity to present evidence in support of Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) submission to the Palmerston North City Council’s Proposed Plan Change 15H: Airport Zone.
A. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
2. My full name is Peter Lindsay Blackwood. I am currently employed as the Manager
Investigations and Design at Horizons Regional Council (“Council”). I have held this position since 30 October 2006. For the period from September 1996 to October 2006 I was
employed as the Manager Technical Services for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. AnnexI
3. I am qualified with a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) and gained my Engineer’s Registration in 1982. I have thirty-nine years experience in civil engineering, including project management, flood control and drainage (policy, asset management, design and supervision), river management and protection works, coastal hazards (storm surge and wave run-up), environmental engineering, water resources (particularly flood frequency), global warming policy and design, civil design (including bridging), financial analysis, irrigation and power station construction.
4. I have authored or supervised the production of numerous designs and reports on river hydrology and hydraulics, floodplain management, global warming impacts, river alignments and erosion protection works.
5. I have managed or supervised detailed floodplain management studies on the Whakatane- Waimana, Waioeka-Otara, Waikanae and Otaki River Schemes.
6. I have prepared numerous design reports under the employ of Council including the following relevant reports: “Lower Whanganui River Flood Protection Investigations Stage One: Review of the Current Flood Hazard”, “Lower Whanganui River Flood Protection
District Advice Update Page 54
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Investigations Stage Two: Assessment of Flood Mitigation Options”, “Rangitikei River
Scheme Review Number 4”, “Horizons Regional Council Flood Protection Scheme Standards Summary Report”, “Non-Scheme Rivers Investigations Prioritising Future Studies” and “Ohakune Flood Protection Investigations Assessment of Flood Mitigation 8 Item Options”.
7. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses and that I agree to comply with it.
B. TECHNICAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO HORIZONS’ SUBMISSION
Horizons Request for Hydraulic (Hydrologic Neutrality) (Refer to paragraphs 4.143 to 4.163 in Michael Duindam Planners Report).
8. In the Horizons Regional Council (Horizons) submission dated 4 March 2015 we advised that “Increases to the runway length, new ancillary roads and other developments are likely to substantially increase stormwater runoff. Horizons requests that hydraulic neutrality is achieved in the 0.5% AEP as a minimum”.
9. I agree with the amendment of “hydraulic neutrality” to “hydrologic neutrality” as advanced in AnnexI the memorandum by John McCartin Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) Stormwater Asset Engineer, contained in Appendix 6 to the evidence of Michael Duindam. The term referenced by Horizons is one that has been used in the Engineering profession and is not coined by Horizons, though the profession would normally recognise what the meaning is.
10. Horizons staff expressed these concerns to Palmerston North Airport Ltd representatives and PNCC staff at a meeting held at the PNCC Office on Friday 21 March 2014.
11. Set out in Horizons submission, we are currently upgrading the Mangaone Stream flood protection, in three locations, to the 0.2% AEP (1 in 500 year) design standard. These locations are: i. Setters Line north of the airport; ii. Flygers Line stopbanks; and iii. Benmore Avenue.
12. It is important to ensure that additionally generated stormwater in the Airport Zone does not materially compromise the standard of flood protection being provided in these locations.
District Advice Update Page 55
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
13. I note that Performance Standard (h) of Rule 13.4.1.1 (Construction, external alteration of,
and addition to buildings and structures) requires connection of all sewer, stormwater and water supply services to essential services through a public service corridor. If additional Item 8 Item stormwater from the development is connected to the reticulated stormwater network that discharges to the Mangaone Stream upstream of Flygers Line, Horizons flood protection measures could be compromised.
14. A different approach to stormwater management is required by proposed Rule 13.4.3.3 for Accommodation Motels and Residential Centres. Assessment criteria (z) requires the site and building design to mitigate any increase in peak stormwater run-off and peak stormwater flow due to the reduction in permeable surfaces. However, there is no performance standards specified that give plan users clarity on what the critical design storm is that must be mitigated.
15. Horizons concern is where there may be additional hardstand areas, such as the runway
extension, where stormwater is proposed to be managed on-site, or discharged from the site, rather than being connected to reticulated stormwater services. If this is the case, there needs to be rules and performance standards included in Section 13 of the Plan to control
AnnexI stormwater discharges to achieve hydraulic neutrality in the 0.5% AEP storm and to ensure that additional stormwater generated does not cause or exacerbate flooding of any other property.
16. Horizons therefore requested that additional rules and performance standards be included in Section 13 of the District Plan to control stormwater discharges from activities, new buildings and new hardstand areas to achieve hydraulic neutrality (replacement of this term with hydrologic neutrality is agreed) in the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 year) design storm. Please note:
i. This is a very similar sized storm to the 1%AEP plus climate change storm, as referenced in the non-mandatory standard NZS4404:2010, Section 4.3.5.1 Design Storms; and
ii. Whilst the 0.5% AEP storm and consequent quantum of mitigation is less than that for the 0.2% AEP storm, it appears that this standard of mitigation cannot be exceeded.
Michael Duindam Planning Response (refer to paragraphs 5.95 – 5.107) and John McCartin, Stormwater Engineer, Memo (refer Appendix 6).
District Advice Update Page 56
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
17. Michael Duindam has based his response largely on the expert technical report produced by
John McCartin contained in Appendix 6.
18. In paragraph 2 of the memo Mr McCartin advises that he does “not consider that the level of 8 Item stormwater that is likely to be generated for the fully developed Airport Zone scenario would be at a level that would materially compromise flood protection in Settlers Line north of the airport, Flygers Line stopbanks or Benmore Avenue. The volumes of stormwater generated by the changes in this area will always be insignificant compared to the volumes heading down the floodway from the Mangaone’s main catchment.”
19. In paragraph 3 Mr McCartin advises that “the only potential risk of discharge into the Mangaone Stream north of the Flygers Line Floodway would come from the proposed runway extension”. Mr McCartin then advises that he considers that any issues related to stormwater management can be dealt with as part of the resource consenting process.
Horizons Response to the Michael Duindam Planning Report and John McCartin,
Stromwater Engineer, Memo
20. Horizons has very recent experience of flooding complaints from landowners in
Fagan Road on the Makowhai Stream located downstream of the Ohakea Airport tributary. AnnexI This stems from an upgrade of the Ohakea Airport facility resulting in increased impermeable surfaces and more runoff.
21. A Consultant report on this flooding has essentially come to the corresponding conclusion as the McCartin memo paragraph 2; that the volumes of additional water generated by the Ohakea Development are insignificant compared to the floodwater quantum in the Makowhai Stream. In this case a house has flooded and since again come close to flooding.
22. The Makowhai Stream landowner cannot be convinced of the findings.
23. A further difficulty is that in the recent 19-21 June 2015 storm the Mangaone Stream experienced a 5% AEP (1 in 20 year) flood (154 cumecs at the Milson Line recorder). This resulted in serious flooding of at least two properties immediately downstream of the Flygers Line spillway near Gillespies Line.
24. The other obvious concerns are elevation of flood levels adjacent to the proposed Flygers Line and Benmore Avenue stopbanks and Taonui Basin flood levels. In regard to the latter Horizons went through an exhaustive and very costly exercise when adding more water to
District Advice Update Page 57
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
the Taonui Basin whilst upgrading the Oroua River stopbanks to their
1% AEP (1 in 100 year) level of service.
Item 8 Item 25. Therefore, the spillway cannot take more water as this will exacerbate the flood levels experienced downstream. Whilst the floodwaters generated may be significantly smaller than those from existing sources, they are an additional component to flooding and will result in an additional water level, regardless of the ambient current flooding sources.
26. In paragraph 2 John McCartin advises that “any development within this zone will transfer stormwater into the reticulated stormwater network, which discharges into the Mangaone Stream downstream of the Flygers Line floodway”.
27. Horizons design engineers have considered this and accept that the Mangaone Stream downstream of the floodway is expected to contain the quantum of this stormwater.
28. However, we note that stormwater generated by the proposed runway extension is unlikely
to reach this reticulated network; instead travelling most likely to the floodway and will require mitigation of the 0.5% AEP flood event. As the floodway operates for up to 24 hours,
that is critical duration storm. AnnexI 29. One observation on the stormwater network that we would like clarification of, is whether the network is indeed designed to carry the 0.5% AEP storm; as most pipe networks are not designed for 0.5% AEP storms. Indeed most stormwater networks are designed for either the 20% AEP (1 in 5 year) or 10% AEP (1 in 10 year) storms. Thus it seems likely that additional flows due to increased impermeable areas would have to flow in the secondary overland flow paths.
30. Section 2.3 of the document entitled “Palmerston North City Council Stormwater Design Manual”, April 1993 advises that the recommended minimum pipe flow capacity is the “peak 5 year return period runoff” (20% AEP). Whilst this document has no doubt been updated and the pipe sizes may exceed the 20% AEP standard, it seems likely that a standard similar to this was the prevailing standard when the pipe infrastructure was constructed.
31. Confirmation is therefore required that in the 0.5% AEP storm additional stormwater generated: i. Does not cause or exacerbate flooding of any other property – through the overland flow. ii. Will not reach the Flygers Line floodway.
District Advice Update Page 58
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
32. In terms of waiting until a resource consent process considers the proposed airport runway
extension, or in fact any other development (such as hypothetically a large maintenance hangar establishment), Horizons is concerned that this should be addressed at the planning stage, being now – in at least an appropriate rule. 8 Item
Horizons Response to the Palmerston North Airport Limited further submissions s56/76 and s56/77 (Para 4.147 Michael Duindam Planning Report)
33. This concern was expressed by the Palmerston North Airport Representatives at the meeting held on 21 March 2014. Horizons understand and support the concern expressed. Horizons confirm that the detentions are for very short duration ponding and would not contain standing water for more than a day and occur on very rare occasions. In such occasions there inevitably would be many areas of surface water around and the detained water would not materially add to the numbers of attracted birds.
Peter Blackwood
MANAGER INVESTIGATIONS AND DESIGN AnnexI
3 November 2015
District Advice Update Page 59
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Further submission from Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council (Horizons) on Wanganui District Council Proposed Plan Change 45
Submitter and Number Reference Support / Oppose Reasons Item 8 Item Wanganui Federated 10.2pc45, Support in part Federated Farmers seeks the amendment of Permitted Activity Rule 10.6.1, to include the Farmers of New Zealand paragraphs 1.14 following two new provisions: (Submitter 10) and 1.15, and 2.23-2.25 Installation of a new fence, bridge, culvert, ford or flood protection structure, where that structure will enhance, or protect the natural character of the key waterway.
To allow planting, tending, harvesting or clearing any vegetation including non-indigenous trees, for conservation, river management or habitat purposes, without defaulting to a restricted discretionary activity.
Horizons supports the inclusion of provisions to allow as permitted activities the fencing of waterways, planting of riparian margins, and installation of stock crossings, for the purpose of improving water quality, and enhancing riparian and in-stream indigenous biodiversity habitat. These activities prevent stock from entering the waterway, and reduce the quantity of nutrients, bacteria and sediment that will discharge into the water.
As Federated Farmers points out in paragraph 2.25, such provisions will enable the
continuation of Horizons’ freshwater and biodiversity programmes, such as the work currently being carried out alongside the Matarawa Stream and Riri a Te Hori Wetland, and other enhancement works supported by Environmental Grants. These activities will contribute to the natural character values the District Plan seeks to preserve and protect, and should be
AnnexJ facilitated by permitted activity status.
District Advice Update Page 60
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
1 September 2015
8 Item Rachael Pull File ref: RAI 04 07 Resource Management Planner LT:PAT Wanganui District Council
PO Box 637 WANGANUI 4500
Dear Rachael
FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT PROVISIONS AND MAPS – OUTSTANDING NATURAL LANDSCAPES
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft provisions and maps that will form the Outstanding Natural Landscapes Plan Change to the Wanganui District Plan. I understand that my colleague Pen Tucker, Horizons Policy Analyst, has already provided you with some feedback on an earlier draft of your provisions. A number of her recommended changes have been incorporated into this later draft.
Background AnnexK Our feedback primarily focuses on the relationship between Horizons’ One Plan (combined regional policy statement and regional plans), and the need for the District Plan to give effect to the regional policy statement components and not be inconsistent with regional plan provisions, as set out in section 75 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). We have also commented on some aspects of the proposed provisions may impact on activities carried out by Horizons on behalf of its communities.
The One Plan became fully operative on 19 December 2014. All references to the One Plan in this submission are to the operative version of the Plan.
A number of outstanding natural features and landscapes and their associated values are identified in Schedule G. Objective 6-2 and Policies 6-6 and 6-7 provide a framework for managing the effects of subdivision, use and development of land that may affect regionally significant outstanding natural features and landscapes.
Objective 6-2 of the One Plan sets the overarching objective for protection of the region’s outstanding natural features and landscapes, including those identified in Schedule G and any others identified as being regionally significant based on an assessment using criteria set out in Policy 6-7, from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
District Advice Update Page 61
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Discussion
8 Spatial Identification of Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL) Policy 6-6 states that natural features and landscapes listed in Schedule G Table G.1 must be
Item spatially defined in the review of district plans. As noted on page 11 of the “Wanganui District Outstanding Natural Landscape Assessment” (Hudson Associates Landscape Architects, 10 July 2015), those outstanding natural features and landscapes listed in Table G.1 of the One Plan that are located within the Wanganui District Council’s jurisdiction are as follows:
- Whanganui River and river valley, upstream of Aramoana - Whanganui National Park - Parts of the coastline including Castlecliff to Nukumaru coastal cliffs
Horizons supports the expert-based approach taken to spatially define these landscapes for inclusion in the District Plan as the ONL Overlay, as it gives effect to Policy 6-6 of the One Plan. We acknowledge that, although the assessment factors used do not exactly match the list set out in Table 6.1, they are presumed to be appropriate and to fulfil Policy 6-7’s approach; that is, territorial authorities must take Table 6.1 into account when considering whether to include any natural feature or landscape in a district plan.
We note that it is our understanding that the Amenity Landscape Overlay has not been assessed as regionally outstanding. Horizons’ interest is predominantly in the treatment of the ONL Overlay area.
Management of Adverse Effects Policy 6-6 of the One Plan sets out a hierarchy for managing subdivision, use and development in AnnexK regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes. Policy 6-6 advocates to avoid significant cumulative effects directly affecting the characteristics and values of these areas. Adverse effects are to be avoided as far as reasonably practicable, and where not reasonably practicable should be remedied or mitigated.
While the policies for the Amenity Landscape Overlay follow the hierarchy of managing effects that is set out in One Plan Policy 6-6, there does not appear to be the same hierarchy of managing effects set out in the policies for the ONL Overlay itself. It is our view that this hierarchy should be reflected in the policy framework for the ONL Overlay provisions.
ONL Overlay Rules The One Plan contains rules relating to vegetation clearance and land disturbance or cultivation in hill country erosion management areas (land that has a pre-existing slope of 20 degrees or more), the coastal foredune (the strip of land between the coastal marine area and a line roughly parallel with the beach, extending 200 metres inland of the first line of vegetation), alongside rivers, and within rare, threatened or at-risk habitats (as defined in Schedule F of the One Plan). While the purpose of the One Plan rules is different to the purpose of the proposed provisions in the District Plan – controlling the loss of sediment into waterways and protecting indigenous biodiversity and habitat rather than protecting amenity values – the overlap between the One Plan rules and the proposed rules could lead to a dual consenting requirement for resource users.
Horizons would welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed rules around managing vegetation, including forestry, and earthworks, to explore whether a more complementary approach is possible. As a minimum, we request that an advice note be added to the introductory paragraph of the ONL Overlay Rules, advising plan users that additional resource consents may be required from Horizons.
District Advice Update Page 62
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Suggested wording for this advice note is as follows:
Resource consent may also be required from Horizons for activities within the Outstanding Natural Landscape Overlay, including vegetation clearance and land disturbance. Contact Horizons for more information. 8 Item
We would be very keen to work through how you envisage these provisions would work in practice; for example, is it intended that planting indigenous vegetation next to streams in an ONL would be a non-complying activity, as the current wording seems to suggest?
Horizons’ Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) is targeted at priority hill land that is prone to erosion. Under SLUI, Horizons aims to develop Whole Farm Plans (WFP) with farmers. These plans help Horizons and the farmers understand the land resources of their farm and then produce works programmes, with the aid of grant money, to address the erosion and water quality issues on the farm.
The Whanganui Catchment Strategy programme covers erosion prone hill country within priority areas of the Whanganui River Catchment (lower Ohura, upper Ohura and Waikaka) and also develops Farm Plans along with one-off work programmes to address erosion and water quality
issues on farms. For the past six years Horizons has had funding support from the Whanganui River Enhancement Trust to encourage more work to be completed.
The types of activities included in Farm Plans for addressing erosion and water quality issues on farms include:
AnnexK - spaced planting of both native and non-native plants; - fencing; - forestry; - managed retirement of erosion-prone areas; and - construction of debris dams.
Attached is a map showing the SLUI priority map for the Wanganui District. The ONL Overlay overlaps with Horizons priority SLUI areas. The proposed permitted activity rule only provides for the maintenance of indigenous vegetation, not new indigenous planting. The proposed rule also only provides for the control or removal of exotic vegetation or animals, not the planting of exotic vegetation or forestry where this is for erosion control purposes. Based on the definition of “structure” in the Wanganui District Plan, we understand that internal fences (more than 1 metre from a property boundary) would also require resource consent from the Wanganui District Council.
Our reading of the rules relating to the ONL Overlay is that many of Horizons’ SLUI activities would be a discretionary or non-complying activity within, and within 100 m of, the ONL Overlay, even though their purpose is to reduce erosion and improve water quality by reducing the amount of silt run-off into waterways. We therefore request that the proposed permitted activity rule for the ONL Overlay be amended to include activities carried out as part of a Farm Plan prepared under SLUI or the Whanganui Catchment Strategy, both on land within and near the Overlay area.
We can provide additional information on SLUI and welcome the opportunity to discuss how a permitted activity approach to these activities could be developed prior to the notification of this proposed plan change.
District Advice Update Page 63
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
We would also like to clarify whether there is any overlap between any of the ONLs and Horizons’
8 flood control and drainage schemes as it is our understanding that the proposed provisions would make even maintenance activities a non-complying activity.
Item Forestry and vegetation clearance within the Amenity Landscape Overlay The establishment of new forestry activities is a discretionary activity within the amenity landscape overlay. As outlined above, SLUI activities include new forestry where this is identified as the most appropriate land use for minimising erosion and sedimentation of waterways. We request that the establishment of new forestry activities where these are carried out in accordance with a Farm Plan be made a permitted activity.
As with the ONL Overlay, Horizons would like to discuss with you how we can reduce potential complexity for resource users where the One Plan and District Plan provisions for vegetation clearance overlap. As a minimum we request that an advice note be added to the introductory paragraph of the Amenity Landscape Overlay Rules that advises plan users that additional resource consents may be required from Horizons.
Suggested wording for this advice note is as follows:
Resource consent may also be required from Horizons for activities within the Amenity
Landscape Overlay, including vegetation clearance and land disturbance. Contact Horizons for more information.
Beekeeping The proposed discretionary activity rule for the Outstanding Natural Landscape Overlay includes AnnexK beekeeping within 100 metres of the Whanganui National Park. We are uncertain what effects this rule is designed to manage.
The Manawatu-Whanganui Growth Study, commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries, lists “manuka honey” as one of the key commercial opportunities for growing our Region. We therefore request that the Wanganui District Council considers deleting the draft discretionary activity rule and instead include a permitted activity rule for beekeeping within the ONL and Amenity Landscape Overlays, subject to compliance with conditions that manage adverse amenity and visual effects.
Minor wording corrections We also include a number of minor wording suggestions and comments in regards to the draft provisions. I have attached a copy of the draft provisions with our suggested changes included as tracked changes. I hope these are useful.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide feedback on these provisions. Please do not hesitate to contact me (email: [email protected] or DDI: (06) 9522 908) if you would like to discuss or clarify any aspect of this feedback. Please note that from the 11th of September 2015 the Horizons address for service for matters relating to this proposed Plan Change is Ashleigh Gulliver, as I will be on maternity leave. Ashleigh’s contact email is Ashleigh. [email protected]
We look forward to continued involvement in this plan change process as it progresses.
District Advice Update Page 64
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Yours sincerely
8 Item
Lisa Thomas COORDINATOR DISTRICT ADVICE
Encl: - Annex A - Overview map of the SLUI target farms and priorities for the Wanganui District
- Annex B - Copies of referenced Objectives and Policies from the One Plan
- Annex C - Tracked changes version of the draft provisions
AnnexK
District Advice Update Page 65
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 8 Item
AnnexK
District Advice Update Page 66
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Objective 6-2: Outstanding natural features and landscapes, and natural
character (a) The characteristics and values of:
(i) the Region’s outstanding natural features and landscapes, including 8 Item those identified in Schedule G, and (ii) the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands^, rivers^ and lakes^ and their margins are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. (b) Adverse effects^, including cumulative adverse effects^, on the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands^, rivers^ and lakes^ and their margins, are: (i) avoided in areas with outstanding natural character, and (ii) avoided where they would significantly diminish the attributes and qualities of areas that have high natural character, and (iii) avoided, remedied or mitigated in other areas. (c) Promote the rehabilitation or restoration of the natural character of the coastal environment, wetlands^, rivers^ and lakes^ and their margins.
Policy 6-6: Regionally outstanding natural features and landscapes The natural features and landscapes listed in Schedule G Table G.1 must be recognised as regionally outstanding and must be spatially defined in the review and development of district plans. All subdivision, use and development directly affecting these areas
must be managed in a manner which: AnnexK (a) avoids significant adverse cumulative effects^ on the characteristics and values of those outstanding natural features and landscapes, and (b) except as required under (a), avoids adverse effects^ as far as reasonably practicable and, where avoidance is not reasonably practicable, remedies or mitigates adverse effects^ on the characteristics and values of those outstanding natural features and landscapes.
Policy 6-7: Assessing outstanding natural features and landscapes The Regional Council and Territorial Authorities^ must take into account but not be limited to the criteria in Table 6.1 when: (a) identifying outstanding natural features and landscapes, and consider whether the natural feature or landscape is conspicuous, eminent, remarkable or otherwise outstanding, and (b) considering adding to, deleting from, or otherwise altering, redefining or modifying the list of outstanding natural features or landscapes listed in Table G.1 of Schedule G, or (c) considering the inclusion of outstanding natural features or landscapes into any district plan^, or (d) establishing the relevant values to be considered when assessing effects^ of an activity on: (i) outstanding natural features and landscapes listed in Table G.1 of Schedule G, or (ii) any other outstanding natural feature or landscape.
District Advice Update Page 67
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Table 6.1 Natural Feature and Landscape Assessment Factors
Assessment factor Scope
Item 8 Item (a) Natural science factors These factors relate to the geological, ecological, topographical and natural process components of the natural feature or landscape: (i) Representative: the combination of natural components that form the feature or landscape strongly typifies the character of an area. (ii) Research and education: all or parts of the feature or landscape are important for natural science research and education. (iii) Rarity: the feature or landscape is unique or rare within the district or Region, and few comparable examples exist. (iv) Ecosystem functioning: the presence of healthy ecosystems is clearly evident in the feature or landscape. (b) Aesthetic values The aesthetic values of a feature or landscape may be associated with:
(i) Coherence: the patterns of land^ cover and land^ use are largely in harmony with the underlying natural pattern of landform and there are no, or few, discordant elements of land^ cover or land^ use. (ii) Vividness: the feature or landscape is visually striking,
AnnexK widely recognised within the local and wider community, and may be regarded as iconic. (iii) Naturalness: the feature or landscape appears largely unmodified by human activity and the patterns of landform and land^ cover are an expression of natural processes and intact healthy ecosystems. (iv) Memorability: the natural feature or landscape makes such an impact on the senses that it becomes unforgettable. (c) Expressiveness (legibility) The feature or landscape clearly shows the formative natural processes or historic influences that led to its existing character. (d) Transient values The consistent and noticeable occurrence of transient natural events, such as daily or seasonal changes in weather, vegetation or wildlife movement, contributes to the character of the feature or landscape. (e) Shared and recognised The feature or landscape is widely known and is highly values valued for its contribution to local identity within its immediate and wider community. (f) Cultural and spiritual Māori values inherent in the feature or landscape add to the values for tangata feature or landscape being recognised as a special place. whenua^ (g) Historic Heritage values Knowledge of historic events that occurred in and around the feature or landscape is widely held and substantially influences and adds to the value the community attaches to the natural feature or landscape. Heritage features, sites* or structures that are present and add to the enjoyment and understanding of the feature or landscape.
District Advice Update Page 68
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-46 Information Only - No Decision Required
REGULATORY MANAGEMENT AND RURAL ADVICE ACTIVITY REPORT - 9 Item DECEMBER 2015 TO JANUARY 2016
1. PURPOSE 1.1. This report updates Members on regulatory activity for the period December 2015 to January 2016. It also includes information on Rural Advice activity as that relates to implementation of land use consents for intensive agriculture.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-46 and Annexes.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. As identified to the Audit and Risk Committee, there are significant costs being incurred by Council as a result of the appeals on several large consents, the volume of consenting work and a prosecution. These costs will be regularly updated to the Audit and Risk Committee.
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.
5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with this item.
6. OVERVIEW 6.1. There is still a significantly high demand for consents and compliance resources. Of particular note is the progression of significant applications, including the Feilding and Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP); the AFFCO Feilding processing plant; and Whanganui District Council’s by-pass discharge application into Coastal Marine Area (CMA). 6.2. During the reporting period a decision relating to the Lake Horowhenua restoration works was made. Land use consents in relation to the construction, operation and maintenance of two boat ramps in the bed of Lake Horowhenua, vegetation clearance associated with the construction of a boat ramp near the Arawhata Stream outlet and harvesting, and removal of vegetation from the bed of Lake Horowhenua were granted for a duration of 35 years. Landuse consent for reclamation of part of the bed of Lake Horowhenua to construct, operate and maintain two boat ramps was granted for an unlimited duration. These decisions have subsequently been appealed. 6.3. Council is still processing other significant applications, including those associated with the Ruapehu District Council and the Department of Conservation WWTP’s. Applications are
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 69 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
also pending for some of the Tararua District Council WWTP’s. Processing these applications will involve a significant amount of staff time and resource (including external
resources). Item 9 Item 7. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
7.1. Rural Advice and Regulatory 7.1.1. Rural Advice staff and DairyNZ ran a series of workshops in the Tararua District on 2 and 3 February, which aimed to introduce dairy farmers in the Upper Manawatu target catchments to the consenting process they will need to engage with this year. The sessions were well-attended and generally well-received. 7.1.2. Staff have continued to engage with Horticulture New Zealand to find a viable approach to nutrient management consenting in that sector. We have now agreed a way forward which we believe allows ‘matters of discretion’ to be adequately addressed. Finding suitably experienced consultants to assist in the application process continues to be a challenge. 7.1.3. Due to the demands of the consenting process, other ‘rural advice’ currently makes up a relatively small proportion of the team’s workload. An overview of enquiries received over the December 2015 – January 2016 period is provided in Table 1 below:
Request Type Number of Requests Effluent pond storage 2 Farm dairy effluent - general 4 Irrigation 3 Dairy conversion information 0 Feed pads 2 Underpass 0 Nutrient management 9
Table 1: Requests for Rural Advice (November 2015-January 2016).
7.2. Progress on Nutrient Management Implementation (Dairy) 7.2.1. The regulatory implementation of the nutrient management provisions continues. The following summarises progress in relation to existing operations and conversions. 7.2.2. Progress in relation to consenting existing intensive landuse activities is summarised in Table 2 below. In relation to existing use activities 93 consents have currently been granted, with an additional 34 applications in the process. In relation to those farms subject to the 1 January 2016 timeframe, a further 73 files are either with the consultants, or have had their base files checked and are awaiting assignment to a consultant. Overall there are currently 35 farms that are currently not involved in the process. Along with DairyNZ, Horizons are currently following up with these farmers to sign them up to the process. In the event there are farmers who refuse to enter into the process Horizons will consider a formal regulatory response. 7.2.3. It is important to note that since we have started working in more catchments it has been confirmed that some farms do not require consent (e.g. no longer a dairy operation) so the total number of farms to be consented has decreased (i.e. currently 399 as opposed to the previously reported 413). It is expected the total number of dairy farms to be consented will continue to fluctuate over the next year or so.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 70 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Files with
Consultants In Process Total
(yet to be lodged) Date when 9 Item (including number Catchment and base files applications have consents to be checked waiting to be lodged* Granted on hold) granted
assignment to Outstanding Consultant
Mangapapa 6 0 1 0 7 1 January 2015
Waikawa 6 1 0 0 7 1 January 2015
Other southwest 1 0 0 0 1 1 January 2015 catchments (Papaitonga)
Subtotal 13 1 1 0 15
Mangatainoka 47 14 15 9 85 1 January 2016
Other Coastal Lakes 1 3 21 11 36 1 January 2016
Coastal Rangitikei 16 15 37 15 83 1 January 2016
Lake Horowhenua 10 0 0 0 10 1 January 2016
Subtotal 74 32 73 35 214
Upper Manawatu (above 6 1 10 153 170 1 January 2017 gorge and Hopelands)
Subtotal 6 1 10 153 170 TOTAL 93 34 84 188 399
Table 2: Summary of Regulatory Implementation of Nutrient Management for Existing Use.
7.3. Conversions 7.3.1. In relation to conversions a total of 48 consents have been granted since 2010, with 23 being processed as controlled activities and 25 restricted discretionary activities. Conversions include full and partial conversions. In the next report staff will look to provide an analysis into how much land has been subject to conversions. Table 3 below provides a summary of the number of conversions by year, whilst Table 4 below provides a summary of conversions by catchment. In relation to Table 3 approximately 26 of the conversions undertaken to date have been partial.
Date Number of Consents Granted 2010-2013 9 2014 24
2015 15
Table 3: Conversions by year.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 71 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Number of Restricted Catchment Controlled Consents Granted Discretionary Cherry Grove (Whai_2) 3 2 1
Item 9 Item Coastal Manawatu (Mana_13) 4 1 3 Coastal Rangitikei (Rang_4) 3 1 2 Coastal Whangaehu (Whau_4) 1 1 0 Lower Manawatu (Mana_11) 5 3 2 Lower Rangitikei (Rang_3) 2 0 2 Lower Whangaehu (Whau_3) 1 1 0 Mangatainoka (Mana_8) 4 4 0 Middle Manawatu (Mana_10) 2 1 1 Middle Rangitikei (Rang_2) 1 1 0 Mowhanau (West_3) 1 0 1 Northern Coastal (West_1) 4 2 2 Oroua (Mana_12) 11 3 8 Southern Whanganui Lakes (West_5) 1 1 0 Tiraumea (Mana_7) 2 1 1 Turakina (Tura_1) 1 1 0 Upper Manawatu (Mana_1 to Mana_6) 1 0 1 Waikawa (West_9) 1 0 1 Total 48 23 25
Table 4: Conversions consented by catchment.
7.3.2. A number of mitigation strategies have been adopted to reduce nutrient losses associated with conversions. Table 5 below summarises the typical mitigation strategies adopted.
Number of farms that have Mitigation committed to implement Installing adequately sized and lined pond by 2020 10 Reduce Nitrogen application or moving timing of application 59 Wintering off more cows 11 Increase use of feedpad / standoff area 11 Better effluent management such as extending effluent areas, 38 installing low rate irrigation and upgrading effluent systems Altering cropping 30 Reduce cow numbers 13 Altering Feed inputs 7
Table 5: Typical mitigation strategies.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 72 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7.4. Existing Use 7.4.1. The following provides an assessment of nitrogen leaching savings for existing use activities.
7.4.2. Figure 1 below shows the base versus target N leaching for Restricted Discretionary and 9 Item Controlled Activity consents. It is noted those farms that have high N leaching rates are making the greatest reductions. To date a total of 15 and 78 controlled and discretionary activities, respectively, have been granted. Table 6 below summarises the number of consents granted by catchment and activity type.
Figure 1: Existing farms base N leaching vs. target N leaching.
Controlled Restricted Catchment Activity Discretionary Mangapapa 1 5 Waikawa 0 6 Lake Papaitonga 1 0 Mangatainoka 0 47 Other Coastal Lakes 0 1 Coastal Rangitikei 11 5 Lake Horowhenua 2 8 Upper Manawatu (above Gorge and Hopelands) 0 6
Table 6: Number of existing use consents granted by catchment and activity type.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 73 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7.4.3. Figure 2 below shows the percentage reduction in N leaching for controlled activities by catchment. The controlled activity requires farms to meet the N leaching limits specified in Table 14.2 of the One Plan. Therefore whilst most farms are making no reduction, and some are increasing, they are still complying with the N leaching limits specified in the One
Item 9 Item Plan.
Figure 2: Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the controlled activity rule stream by catchment. A negative percentage is an increase in leaching.
7.5. Figure 3 below shows the percentage reduction in N leaching for Restricted Discretionary Activities by catchment. The majority of farms are making reductions between 2 and 14 percent. In relation to those farms not making a reduction it is important to note these farms were already low leaching operations and were already taking reasonable steps to mitigate N loss.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 74 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Figure 3: Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the restricted discretionary rule stream
by catchment.
7.6. Completed Catchments Item 9 Item 7.6.1. The following is a summary on N leaching reductions made in those catchments where all existing farms have now been consented. Figure 4 below compares target N leaching against base N leaching.
Figure 4: Target v Base N Leaching in completed catchments
7.6.2. Figure 5 below shows the percentage reduction in N leaching by catchment type for controlled activities. Given these consents are controlled activity, Horizons must grant what has been applied for, provided the areas of control have been addressed.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 75 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 9 Item
Figure 5. Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the controlled activity rule stream. A negative percentage is an increase in leaching.
7.6.3. Figure 6 below summarises the reductions made in completed catchments for Restricted Discretionary consents. In summary, the majority of farms are making reductions of between 3 and 13 percent.
Figure 6: Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the restricted discretionary rule stream. A negative percentage is an increase in leaching.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 76 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
8. CONSENTS 8.1. The Regulatory Team is at the tail-end of one significant application. Progress in relation to this and other larger applications since the last report are summarised below:
a. Feilding WWTP 9 Item As previously reported this decision has now been appealed by the applicant and some submitters. The appeal was heard during the beginning February. A decision from the Court is pending. Horizons supported the original decision of the hearing panel. b. NZ Energy Limited (NZEL) An Environment Court hearing occurred on 8-10 December 2015, and due to lack of available court space, was held in Levin. The main issue in contention relates to the volume of water available for allocation in the Makotuku, Makara and Makaraiti watercourses. This case will be the first Environment Court test of the One Plan water allocation framework in relation to a resource consenting process. The evidence of Horizons experts has largely supported the decision made by the independent Hearing Commissioner. At the time of writing this report a decision from the Court was pending. c. Department of Conservation (DOC) – Whakapapa WWTP Horizons met with DOC staff to discuss the current applications. In summary, DOC are to submit a consolidated application by mid-March 2016. This will then be reviewed by Horizons staff with a view to making a decision on whether the applications are to be fully notified. Whilst a decision on notification has yet to occur, at present we believe public notification of the applications is highly likely. d. Horowhenua District Council (HDC) - Levin Water Supply As previously reported the decision on this matter has been appealed. In summary HDC have appealed the decision on the basis they believe the conditions imposed compromise the level of service it can provide to Levin in relation to potable water supply and the duration is to short. Mediation is scheduled to occur in March 2016. e. Horowhenua District Council – Hokio Stream Cut A hearing was held in early February. We are expecting a decision in relation to this matter to be made by the Commissioner in late March 2016. f. Horowhenua District Council – Foxton WWTP HDC formally lodged applications in relation to the discharge of wastewater onto land at Matakarapa Island. The applications have been publically notified, with submissions closing on 18 February 2016. Horizons received 60 submissions, with 32 in opposition, 22 in support and three being neutral. g. Whanganui District Council (WDC) A resource consent application seeking to authorise the short-term discharge of wastewater into Coastal Marine Area (CMA) has been received. The application was notified in July 2015, with submissions closing in August 2015. Horizons received six submissions, with one in opposition. The submission period was then extended, with the agreement of the applicant, and two further submissions were received in opposition. As previously reported Horizons believes that any short-term consent should provide a timeline to the rebuild of the plant such that WDC can operate under either its existing long-term consent or will have applied for a new long-term consent before the short-term consent expires. Horizons is likely to seek that the conditions of a
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 77 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
short-term consent facilitate it to take regulatory action should WDC fail to meet timelines for operating under its existing (or a new) long-term consent. WDC has established a working party with tangata whenua to identify areas of
common ground that might be included in the conditions of the short term consent. Item 9 Item Horizons is a member of the working party. Discussions between WDC and tangata whenua have continued over the reporting period. The hearing is scheduled to occur during the week beginning 21 March 2016. h. Horizons Regional Council – Lake Horowhenua As noted above consents have been granted to enable the necessary remediation works to occur. However, the decision has been appealed to the Environment Court. i. AFFCO - Feilding No update since the previous report. At present we still anticipate this matter will go to a hearing. A date for the hearing has yet to be set.
8.2. The Regulatory Team has been providing pre-application support in relation to other significant applications that are due to be lodged within the next 12 months. These are summarised below: j. Ruapehu District Council - Raetihi, National Park and Ohakune Wastewater Treatment Plants No update since last Environment Committee. k. Levin Landfill Since the last Environment Committee, Horizons notified the review of the resource consents and the HDC application seeking to vary a number of conditions. Upon close of the submission period Horizons received approximately 180 submissions.
9. APPEALS 9.1. The table below outlines the consents currently under appeal:
Applicant Status New Zealand Energy Limited Some matters are still unresolved therefore an Hydro-electric Scheme - Raetihi Environment Court Hearing is to be scheduled for Consents 101987/1, 101990/1, 101991/1, December 2015. 101992/2, 101993/1, 102264/1, 104088, 104089, 104090, 104091, 106031, 106032 and 106033. Manawatu District Council Council has formally entered into mediation with all Fielding Wastewater Treatment Plant. relevant parties. Agreement cannot be reached Consents 106945 – 106951 and 107070 – and appeal to be heard in Environment Court in 107072. February 2016. Horowhenua District Council No dates set yet however notice from the Court has Levin water supply recommended that parties enter into a mediation process. Horizons Regional Council No dates set in relation to mediation or a Court Lake Horowhenua Restoration Works hearing.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 78 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
10. CONSENT MONITORING 10.1. Territorial Authorities
The following is an update on what has been happening, and a look at the larger consents: Item 9 Item a. Horowhenua District Council (HDC) Monitoring of the resource consents continues. Whilst there is considerable tension around the works being undertaken in relation to these resource consents, HDC was, at the time of writing this report, complying with the conditions of consent. b. Rangitikei District Council (RDC) As noted in previous reports, concerns have been identified with the Marton, Taihape and Hunterville WWTP. For the Hunterville WWTP these concerns relate to timeframes for providing calibration certificates for flow meters being missed and regular use of the emergency by-pass, whilst for Taihape WWTP there is concern with the filtration plant being by-passed due to inadequate capacity in the plant. In Marton the key concern has been high levels of ammonical nitrogen in the discharge and receiving environment, and the potential impact leachate from the Bonny Glenn landfill is having on the discharge and the Tutaenui Stream. A summary of actions occurring at the wastewater treatment plants by RDC is attached and marked Annex A. As noted in the previous report, investigation work undertaken by RDC identified that whilst total Chromium concentrations met the ANZECC protection value upstream of the WWTP discharge, concentrations increased significantly and exceeded the protection level at all three downstream sites. RDC is intending to undertaken further investigation into determining how much of the chromium detected is in the trivalent or hexavalent form. This investigation work will occur when flow returns to the Tutaenui Stream. As previously noted RDC have also established a timeframe for works to occur that will address leachate issues at the WWTP and also assist it in preparing its renewal application which is due in 2019. c. Tararua District Council Progress in relation to the various WWTP are detailed in paragraph 12.1 below. d. Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) As previously reported the PNCC resource consent for the Totara Road WWTP was varied in November 2015. Under the varied consent the first matters PNCC have to address are: i. Submit a River Monitoring Plan (RMP) to Horizons within 12 months of the final decision on the new conditions (Condition 19); and ii. Commencing preliminary investigations no later than May 2017 and provide Horizons with a Statement of Intent on the specific actions over the following 12 months to achieve the milestone targets (Best Practicable Options (BPO) review - Condition 23 B,C,D). PNCC have advised they will be commencing both these streams of work later on in this calendar year, when budget is available, so it is in a position to meet both of the above requirements. This will include an ecologist developing the RMP and project set-up and initial tasks identified for the BPO review. Regarding Condition 7, which relates to the Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) concentrations of the WWTP discharge, PNCC have submitted the results of
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 79 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
their recent monitoring. The results show that PNCC is complying with the new DRP standard. In line with its commitment to Horizons, PNCC staff have been invited to attend the
next Environment Committee meeting. Item 9 Item e. Manawatu District Council Regular monitoring of both the water quality and discharge data has occurred during the reporting period. No issues have been identified. Annual compliance reports have been lodged and are currently being reviewed by the Regulatory Team. f. Ruapehu District Council Horizon’s continues to monitor water quality information as it becomes available. No issues have been identified. Annual compliance reports have been lodged. The Regulatory Team will be reviewing these reports and assessing compliance.
11. WATER PROGRAMME 11.1. The reporting period has focussed on following up with those consent holders who have yet to install and / or verify flow meters as required by the regulations. As previously reported Horizons wrote to these water users advising them they need to provide verification certificates by the end of November (for takes greater than 20 l/sec), and end of February 2016 (for takes between 10 and 20 l/sec). As a consequence of this Horizons issued seven Abatement Notices that required consent holders with water takes greater than 20l/sec to verify their flow meters and provide certification by 29 February 2016. 11.2. The reporting period has seen demand for water increase. It is pleasing to report that despite increased demand and pressures there has been a high level of compliance. 11.3. During December 2015 there were non-compliances with the Rangitikei District Council (RDC) water take for the Mangaweka township. RDC have been actively investigating the causes for the non-compliances and have advised they suspect the cause of the non- compliance is hidden off-takes between the flow meter and point of take in the system. In January RDC updated Horizons of progress and advised they were still finding more off-takes within the system.
12. WASTEWATER PROGRAMME 12.1. The purpose of this section is to provide a general overview of compliance rates for WWTPs over time and what each District Council is doing to improve the environmental performance of its WWTP. It is intended that one district council will be reported on each reporting period. Accordingly, the focus for this report is on the Tararua District Council (TDC) WWTP. Graphs showing compliance with consents for each WWTP over a period of time (reflecting consent duration) is attached and marked Annex B to this report. 12.2. The following provides a summary of what has been happening at each of the TDC WWTP: a. Danniverke WWTP: Three out of the four ponds are now lined. Pond 1 is in the process of being de-sludged, with an anticipated completion date of April 2016. Disc filters are being installed within the next month or so. Installation of the tephra plant continues. These upgrades are not required under the resource consent. b. Woodville WWTP: Upgrades are now complete. These include an addition of a clarifier to reduce suspended solids and installation of curtains to increase
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 80 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
residence time in the ponds. Extensive Infiltration and Inflow investigations have also occurred to reduce stormwater inflow into the WWTP. c. Paihatua WWTP: A new aerator has been installed and pipe work is been laid to
re-direct the discharge from Town Creek to the Mangatioka River. A clarifier has Item 9 Item now been installed along with UV treatment. d. Eketahuna WWTP: The significant non-compliances relate to TDC not undertaking the required upgrades to the WWTP, which included lining of the pond, installation of Dissolved Aeration Filtration (DAF) plant. Subsequent to the granting of the resource consent TDC realised some of conditions, such as the installation of the DAF unit were not viable. It must also be noted that during this time TDC were also undertaking significant upgrades to higher priority WWTP. TDC have now lodged a new application for the WWTP. e. Ormondville, Norsewood, Pongaroa WWTP: Inflow and outflow meters have been installed. In relation to the Norsewood WWTP a tephra clarifier has been installed. It is expected this will result in reducing suspended solids and phosphorus concentrations. These are small discharges with a small environmental impact. It is important to note that whilst some WWTPs have experienced some non-compliances in the past, the above upgrades are or are expected to improve compliance with the resource consent discharge standards.
13. DAIRY AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 13.1. During the reporting period 308 dairy effluent systems have been inspected. 13.2. Nutrient Management implementation in target catchment areas continues as a priority. In this respect monitoring on farm will focus on encouraging the implementation of farm mitigation options accepted by the farmer for his individual farm. A key part of monitoring these consents will be the conversations on farm at the time of the annual inspection, discussing the practical aspects of the consent holder’s agreed commitments. 13.3. Since July staff have visited 25 farms that have conversion consents. The focus of these visits has been to discuss with the farmers how Horizons will be monitoring their resource consents. In summary compliance will be assessed against the consented farm system (i.e. there is no significant change in farm input as identified in their resource consent). Compliance will be assessed on a rolling three year average to take into account seasonal variations. 13.4. In the reporting period Horizons received five annual nutrient reports, which are currently being reviewed. These reports focus on nutrient input and output across the farm for the previous season. 13.5. During 2016 there are a total of 127 farms to be inspected. These include both conversions and existing intensive land use operations. Staff have inspected 19 existing use operations, whilst as noted above we have visited 25 conversions. In relation to existing land use operations the focus of these inspections will be talking to the farmer about how they are implementing their agreed mitigations as identified in their resource consent. 13.6. In addition to inspecting these farms Horizons will also be assessing how the farmer is tracking against their N leaching trajectory identified in their resource consent. Given an entire season needs to elapse before we can track how a farmer is performing, we are not expecting to be able to complete assessing consented N numbers and the effectiveness of agreed mitigations until December 2016.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 81 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
14. COMPLIANCE AND NON-COMPLIANCE 14.1. There were 359 compliance monitoring interactions during the reporting period. Of these eight non-compliances were detected, and six significant non-compliances. This equates
to approximately 96% compliance rate across the programme. Item 9 Item 14.2. Below is a breakdown of the non-compliances by consent area for the reporting period: Industry: Four non-compliance and five significant non-compliance. Rural: Four non-compliances and one significant non-compliances
15. ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS 15.1. Over the reporting period a total of 143 complaints were received. The majority of these complaints (90) related to discharges to air. The remainder of the complaints related to discharges to land (26) and water (27).
16. SIGNIFICANCE 16.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Greg Bevin Tom Bowen REGULATORY MANAGER MANAGER RURAL ADVICE
Nic Peet GROUP MANAGER STRATEGY & REGULATION
ANNEXES A Rangitikei District Council Consent Compliance Report – July 2015 to October 2015. B Tararua District Council Wastewater Treatment Plant performance.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 82 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
REPORT
SUBJECT: Consent Compliance – Jul 2015 to October 2015 Item 9 Item TO: Assets/Infrastructure Committee
FROM: Joanna Saywell - Utilities Asset Manager
DATE: 29 January 2016
FILE: 5-EX-4
1 Introduction
1.1 This report is a summary of Rangitikei District Council’s compliance with resource consent
conditions from Horizons Regional Council, for the period indicated above. Information on compliance has been derived from our Water Outlook system plus communications with Tracey Kirwan (water supply) and Robert Rose (wastewater), compliance monitoring officers at Horizons, as well as formal reports from them.
1.2 Water Outlook became live on 1st July 2015, and reports that have already been set up are AnnexA providing good visibility about compliance with consents for water abstraction in particular. Horizons now receive live data.
1.3 Joanna Saywell and Andrew van Bussel have met with Horizons on several occasions to update them on progress towards full compliance.
2 Water Supply
2.1 The following table shows the compliance of each water supply scheme against consent conditions. Only those schemes for which Rangitikei District Council is the consent holder have been shown.
Table 1: Consent Compliance – Water Supply
Scheme Compliance Comments Actions Marton Compliant No issues identified Note that the renewal of the Calico bore abstraction consent is still on hold pending decisions on rural supplies near Marton.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 83 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Scheme Compliance Comments Actions Taihape Compliant Construction planned Horizons have accepted before summer 2015- proposal to discharge excess
Item 9 Item 2016. water take back to Hautapu Stream. Winter flows have been within limits. Bulls Compliant New metering to be installed. Mangaweka Non- High water usage has Meters have been checked Compliant meant that abstraction and no abnormal usage by limits have been metered customers has been exceeded for all of noticed. Investigations are December. continuing into possible leaks. Ratana Not Abstraction rate Design and construction of assessed monitoring not in place at treatment plant underway. existing bore. Consent to Agreements for land use new bore for easements out for signature. production has been
acquired. Erewhon Compliant One outstanding weir Taihape Plumbing has been Rural gauging needed in engaged to carry out the final summer. weir gauging and will do so once the river is at the AnnexA specified level. Hunterville Compliant Rural Omatane Compliant Rural
3 Wastewater
3.1 Compliance against consents is shown per wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the table below.
Table 2: Consent Compliance - Wastewater
Scheme Compliance Comments Actions Marton Compliant Issues with ammoniacal Focus Group formed. nitrogen and short- circuiting. Leachate Onus placed on Bonny Glen from Bonny Glen high in to clean up leachate prior to ammonia. discharge. Inspection by Horizons Sucker waste storage at inlet in August found the site into plant currently under to be Fully Complying design.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 84 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Scheme Compliance Comments Actions Taihape Non- Non-compliant for flow. Upgrade works and compliant Issues with Inflow & programme for I and I
Infiltration (I&I). reduction started. First 9 Item 1,000m of sewers identified Replacement filters for lining. Lining work about installed but not to start once work completed working as well as in Hunterville. expected. Membrane supplier Tender accepted for requested to replace new lamella clarifier membranes as a matter of and design underway. urgency.
Some pond short- Results awaited for sludge circuiting to be survey. addressed. Stormwater cross Monitoring reports for connections being addressed. the in stream effects of the plant on the stream demonstrate less than minor effects on the
stream. AnnexA Bulls Consent Consent application has Awaiting response from expired been lodged with Horizons on consent. Horizons. Sludge to be removed in April. Mangaweka Non- Compliance report sent Manual samples to be taken compliant to Horizons noted that until Automatic sampler has the automatic sampler been repaired. had failed and no samples had been taken.
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 85 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Scheme Compliance Comments Actions Hunterville Non- Non-compliant for flow I&I work underway to reduce compliant gauging. flows to WWTP.
Item 9 Item High flows through Approximately 600m of old plant for most of the pipe in Hunterville has been time from end of June lined this year. to end of September.
Cut-off drain around Reed beds to be trimmed to pond has been re- improve efficiency. excavated.
Lamella clarifier Lamella clarifier installed and installed and working good results obtained in well. December. Evaporation from ponds greater than inflow in January so not much flow through clarifier to stream. Clarifier to be fully optimised once there is sufficient flow.
Ponds in need of sludge Ponds to be de-sludged in removal. March. (Work brought
forward from next year’s AnnexA Monitoring reports for programme). the in stream effects of the plant on the stream Aquanet engaged to assist demonstrate less than with consent issues relating minor effects on the to the peak flow volumes stream. experienced in winter. Ratana Compliant Issues with outfall to WWTP will be upgraded to lake in summer months. improve effluent quality and Extra aeration required. cater for growth. Report received from Opus. Koitiata Non- Irrigation field Koitiata Wastewater compliant undersized. Inflow Reference Group has been meter installed. formed and meetings held Estimate for work to with ultimate aim of deciding address effluent on a sustainable wastewater disposal issues is solution for the community $250,000.
4 Recommendation
4.1 That this report be received. Joanna Saywell Utilities Asset Manager
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January Page 86 2016
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 9 Item
AnnexB
Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - December 2015 to January 2016 Page 87
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-47 Information Only - No Decision Required
TARARUA DISTRICT COUNCIL - UPDATE ON WATER AND WASTEWATER 10 Item INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
1. PRESENTATION 1.1. Blair King (Chief Executive), Kathy Dever-Tod (Manager Assets Group), and Dave Watson (Water & Waste Manager) will present an update on Tararua District Councils’ water and wastewater projects to the Environment Committee at 11.30am.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the presentation from Blair King (Chief Executive), Kathy Dever-Tod (Manager Assets Group), and Dave Watson (Water & Waste Manager) on Tararua District Councils’ water and wastewater projects.
3. SIGNIFICANCE 3.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Greg Bevin Nic Peet REGULATORY MANAGER GROUP MANAGER STRATEGY AND REGULATION
ANNEXES There are no attachments for this report.
Tararua District Council - Update on Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects Page 89
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-48 Information Only - No Decision Required
FRESHWATER & SCIENCE PROGRESS REPORT 11 Item
1. PURPOSE 1.1. The purpose of this item is to introduce members of Council’s Environment Committee, the Freshwater and Science Progress report for the period November to January 2015.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-48 and Annex.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. The Freshwater and Science programme at Horizons is reported on publicly to the Environment Committee regularly throughout the year and also communicated via various forums and methods.
5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no immediate financial impact associated with this report.
6. SUMMARY OF THE NOVEMBER 2015 TO JANUARY 2016 REPORT 6.1. The November to January period of the year has been particularly busy across both the Freshwater and Science programmes. 6.2. The Freshwater programme has continued to work including: Completing fencing and planting jobs and advertising and following up with farmers to find further jobs to ensure targets will be met; A Manawatu River Leaders Forum meeting that approved a draft of the revised action plan; The Manawatu Freshwater Clean-up Fund project closing at the end of December; and The Lake Horowhenua restoration consents for a sediment trap, fish pass installation and lake weed harvesting being granted, then subsequently receiving a single appeal. 6.3. The science programme has continued work on a range of projects and also had a focus on the summer field work programmes. Some highlights include: Winter/spring groundwater levels data showing stabilisation of some recently declining water levels in some bores in the Santoft area;
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 91
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Securing additional funding in collaboration with GNS science to analyse information on groundwater age; Few water use restrictions due to low flows during the reporting period;
Lake water quality information from the upgraded water quality monitoring Item 11 Item programme and the recreational monitoring programme being analysed; The biomonitoring programmes underway for the summer season and significant progress being made on the reporting of periphyton state and trends in the region and the drivers of these; The fluvial survey programme being confirmed with a focus on the Oroua and Makino streams; The fluvial research programme being scoped further with work focussing on a potential LIDAR survey of the Oroua and lower Manawatu rivers to identify levels of aggradation over the last 10 years; An update of the predicted outcomes from the SLUI programme including data for the 2014 and 2015 years; An air quality awareness campaign being developed about dry firewood; and A new methodology for assessing the progress of the top 200 bush fragments programme being trialled. 6.4. Further detail on these aspects of the programme and other activity over the reporting period are provided in the report.
7. SIGNIFICANCE 7.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Craig Grant Jon Roygard ACTING GROUP MANAGER FRESHWATER & SCIENCE MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
ANNEXES A Freshwater and Science Progress Report
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 92
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
Freshwater Management
1 Waterway Enhancement & Protection
1.1 Targets – Regional Freshwater Programme
The Waterway Enhancement and Protection section reports on water quality implementation work across the Region, excluding the work undertaken as part of the Manawatu and Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Funds, which is reported separately in the next sections of the Environment Committee report. Brief updates for the current reporting period (1 November 2015 – 31 January 2016) are provided in the sections below. A summary of the progress made against the targets for the year is provided in Table 1 and in the Summary Table at the end of this section.
Table 1: Annual Plan performance measures for the 2015-16 year for the Regional Freshwater Programme (excluding the Freshwater Clean-up Fund work for the Manawatu and Horowhenua Catchments). Reporting Period YTD Measure st nd rd th th Target % 1 2 3 4 5 Actual AnnexA Work with individuals, community groups and 34 47 20 - - 101 25 404% iwi to improve waterways *1 Environmental Grant applications supported *1 11 20 8 - - 39 20 195% *1 AP/LTP targets
1.2 Activity Report
Work with individuals, community groups and iwi to improve waterways:
Context
The work with individuals or groups includes providing specific advice regarding freshwater projects and generally addresses the best methods to improve water quality or aquatic habitat. These include stock exclusion, planting, weed control, sediment control and fish passage improvement advice. Each individual or group is only counted once per year, although many projects involve numerous contacts and/or visits as they progress. This excludes work undertaken in the Manawatu and Lake Horowhenua catchments, which is reported separately. Work to inform where to target works to be most effective continues in close collaboration with the Science team. This includes working with the Science team to assist with water quality investigation studies, including monitoring work in the Ohau and Waikawa Catchments.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 93
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Update
1.2.1 During this period, 28 individuals, iwi, community groups and clubs requested advice from the Freshwater team and have been visited or contacted and provided with advice. Eight of these advice recipients subsequently applied for Freshwater Grants. Advice on plant pest and willow
Item 11 Item control work prior to beginning fencing and planting works was a theme.
1.2.2 Staff have continued to work with Ngati Rangi supporting fencing and planting projects in the Tokiahuru catchment (Whangaehu). This has involved working with landowners and preparing for this year’s works, which will get underway over the next few months.
1.2.3 Staff have continued to work with iwi/hapu groups within the Rangitikei Catchment to discuss potential new projects within the Porewa, Hautapu and Makowhai (Coastal Rangitikei) catchments.
1.2.4 Two signs were installed at popular swimming spots in December – one at Ohau and one at Mowhanau. These signs advertise the availability of information about swimability at the sites, which is updated weekly on the website, and include a QR scan code for smart phone users to link to the website. The signs also highlight the Freshwater team’s non-regulatory work being undertaken in the catchments to improve water quality. Signs are being finalised for other popular
swimming spots.
AnnexA
Photo 2: The new sign installed near the Mowhanau Stream, Whanganui.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 94
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Environmental Grant applications supported:
Context
Environmental Grants support a wide range of works that primarily include fencing and planting of
waterways, fish pass remediation, and willow and weed control such as releasing of native trees and shrubs Item 11 Item planted last winter.
Update
1.2.5 During November to January, eight new Freshwater Grant applications were lodged and more were in the planning phase. Other work completed included release spraying of plantings from last year and scoping of further projects.
1.2.6 So far this year 15 claims have been finalised, totalling more than 4 km of stream fencing, and 3,425 native trees have been planted (Table 1). The programme at current allocation levels is projecting completion of more than 19 km of fencing and more than 17,000 plants (Table 2, Map 1).
1.2.7 Flyers promoting the freshwater programme were provided to Rural Delivery contractors in late January ready for delivery to landowners in the focus catchment areas of Manakau, Waikawa, Ohau, Kuku and Waiwiri catchments in early February. Further Rural Delivery flyer drops around
key areas in the region will be distributed in February-March.
AnnexA
Photo 1: The flyer being sent to some Rural Delivery mailboxes in Horowhenua District in early February.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 95
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Table 2: Summary of completed and proposed work in focus catchments for the regional freshwater programme for 2015-16 (excluding the Manawatu and Horowhenua Accord/Freshwater Clean-up Fund work). *TMOTW – Te Mana o Te Wai fund. Is this also a Year to Year to
Item 11 Item priority date date no. Other work Focus Proposed Proposed catch- length of of completed/ catchment fencing planting ment in fencing natives comments the One completed planted Plan? One school planting day was Awarua No 0 0 25 25 held in December. Supported the Coastal Yes 0 0 2,200 0 Bulls community Rangitikei group. Community catchment care Hautapu No 0 0 0 0 group and an iwi project proposal
supported. Weed control advice provided Kaitoke Yes 0 0 500 0 to three landowners.
AnnexA Three fish passes being Manganui o te costed. These No 500 m 0 500 - Ao may be completed late summer. Sign installed in Mowhanau No 1,780 m 0 75 0 December 2015 Further scoped projects as part Porewa Yes 985 m 300 7,370 330 of TMOTW* application. Waikawa Yes - - - -
Waiwiri Yes - - - - Regional Release Freshwater 3,330 3,070 spraying of last Grants (outside 11,735 m 3,740 m plants plants year’s plantings focus completed. catchments) TOTAL 2015- 14,000 3,425 15,000 m 4,040 m 16 plants plants
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 96
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
AnnexA
Map 1: Locations of the Regional Freshwater Grants 2015-16.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 97
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Nga Whenua Rahui Work:
Context
As discussed in the Freshwater Operational Plan, a Freshwater staff member (Joe Martin) undertakes work on contract to Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR), assessing proposals for protection of bush remnants, wetlands Item 11 Item and stream sites on Maori owned land.
Update
1.2.8 Fencing off of a large bush block at Tawanui (near Raetihi) was approved with fencing due to start in March.
1.2.9 Horizons Freshwater Management officer Joe Martin spent five days assisting in the training of two new Nga Whenua Rahui staff members – one in plant pest control and one with the overall kawenata (covenant) process.
1.2.10 The plant pest control programme and budget was completed. This involved inspecting 28 Kawenata sites, of which 13 required some form of plant pest control. This work will be undertaken by a contractor because the sites are relatively low in plant pests and therefore the costs are low.
1.2.11 A new bush block at Pukeokahu (Taihape) was inspected and a proposal for kawenata is underway, expected to be completed in time for the May 2016 Nga Whenua Rahui meeting.
1.2.12 Two other proposals being submitted to the May meeting include a wetland on Ngaurukehu and a bush block on Te Pa, totalling more than 470 hectares.
AnnexA 1.2.13 One bush block near Whangamomona was inspected for a potential kawenata but due to the difficult terrain, fencing quotes were very high and therefore the project was declined.
1.2.14 Fencing repairs on Te Pa have been approved by Nga Whenua Rahui and work should commence in March.
Photo 2: A wetland on Operiki (Matahiwi) protected by Nga Whenua Rahui five years ago, inspected to check for any plant pests, January 2016. A small amount of blackberry control is planned this summer.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 98
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
1.3 Waterway Enhancement and Protection Summary
Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables 101 individuals, community groups or iwi have been Work with individuals, visited or contacted and provided with advice this 11 Item community groups or Work with 25 individuals, year to date. iwi to improve community groups or iwi waterways Partnership projects with iwi, district councils and other groups within Horizons Region are continuing. Thirty nine Freshwater Grant applications have been Environmental Grant 20 Environmental Grants accepted so far this year, with others in the planning applications supported supported phase. Fifteen claims were made totalling more than 4 km of fencing and 3,425 natives planted. Works completed in accordance with the contract to Nga Whenua Three proposals for new kawenata are being Rahui (NWR), including submitted to the May Nga Whenua Rahui meeting. Nga Whenua Rahui assessing proposals for 28 sites inspected for plant pests and 13 sites have protection of bush works planned. remnants, wetlands and Fencing at Tawanui and repair fencing on Te Pa are stream sites on Maori starting soon. owned land.
Clare Ridler FRESHWATER COORDINATOR
Jon Roygard
FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER AnnexA
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 99
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
2 Manawatu River Accord and Manawatu Freshwater Clean-up Fund
2.1 Targets – Manawatu Accord Item 11 Item
Brief updates for the current reporting period (November to January 2016) are provided in the sections below. The targets for the 2015-16 financial year are summarised in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Annual Plan performance measures for the 2015-16 year for Manawatu River Accord. Reporting Period Allocat
Measure st nd rd th th -ed Target % 1 2 3 4 5 work Stream fencing, including riparian 6.68 10.2 0 - - 29.6 45 km 65% planting. km km 16 sites 26 sites Improve native fish habitat and 13 0 (8,947 - - (22,503 10 sites 260% fish passage. sites plants) plants) 4 Community involvement projects. 0 0 0 - - 10 250% projects
2.2 Activity Report
Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum:
Context
AnnexA An overview of the timelines for the development of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum and the subsequent action plan is provided in Figure 1: Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum timeline. The action plan is overseen by the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum with meetings generally twice yearly. Progress on the Forum Action Plan was reported on in April 2014 via a public report that was accompanied by an independent science report on the state and trends of water quality in the Manawatu. A further report on progress was presented in November 2014 where the Leaders Forum initiated a refresh of the Action Plan. A Science and Mauturangi Maori Advisory panel met and produced a report to inform the process in early 2015. This report was presented to the Manawatu River Leaders Forum in June 2015.
Manawatu River Action plan Manawatu River Manawatu River Clean-up Fund Action plan Leaders’ Accord prepared and Leaders’ Forum Leaders’ Accord project ends continues and
signed agreed secured $5.2 Clean-up Fund send iteration
million of projects started of action plan funding from to be developed. Government’s implemented Freshstart for Freshwater
Clean-up Fund 2015 on
July 2011 July2012
June 2015 June
March March 2012 August 2010 August
Figure 1: Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum timeline.
2.2.1 Over 2015 the Leaders Forum has been working on a revision of the Action Plan. The process was facilitated via an advisory group formed from Leaders within the various sector groups represented in the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum and staff from Horizons. During the later part of 2015, the advisory group and the sector groups drafted a revised Action Plan.
2.2.2 During the reporting period the draft Action Plan was the focus of a Manawatu River Leaders Forum meeting in November where the actions were reviewed and the process for finalising them was decided. Further work has focussed on finalising the updated Action Plan.
2.2.3 The updated Action Plan is in production with designers and is expected to be circulated to Forum members in February for comment, with the public launch planned for 11 March with the Minister
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 100
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
for the Environment in attendance. A programme of events for the week leading up to the launch of the Action Plan is being finalised and is likely to include a riverside clean-up, farm open days hosted by Federated Farmers, guided walks and a dung beetle workshop. Further activities are planned in the catchment on the 11 March including activities in the Tararua near Dannevirke and
at Foxton. Item 11 Item Context:
Horizons Regional Council has a targeted rate for the Manawatu Accord work. During the 2012-14 years this funding was incorporated into the Manawatu Freshwater Clean-up Fund work (see below). In the 2015-16 financial year, the targeted rate funding is being used to run a programme in addition to the Manawatu Clean-up Fund work (as was also done in the 2014-15 year). This work is overviewed below. The implementation work includes more stream fencing, riparian planting, fish habitat enhancement including fish barrier remediation work, and community projects. The community projects approved in 2014- 15 included: . Ossie Latham – Mangaone West Landcare Group; . NZ Landcare Trust – Stoney Creek Catchment Project; . Mike Hoggard & Alison Short – Haynes Creek Project; . Te Roopu Taiao o Ngati Whakatere – Manawatu riparian planting near Poutu Pa;
. Roslyn Reach (Marise Clark) – Little Kawau Stream rehabilitation project; . Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc – Tuna revitalisation; . Te Kāuru – Phase 3 Parahaki Island Project; . Te Kāuru – Phase 2 Kaitoke Walkway Establishment;
. Dennis Emery (Oroua Catchment Care Group) – Colyton Stream, Guy property riparian project; and AnnexA . Dennis Emery (Oroua Catchment Care Group) – Colyton Stream, continuation of riparian work at AFFCO.
Update
2.2.4 A total of 72 freshwater projects in the Manawatu Catchment have been confirmed and 31 of these projects have been completed so far. These projects comprise 15 fencing and 16 planting projects with 10,229 metres of fencing completed and 8,947 plants planted this financial year. The target for riparian planting jobs (10 per year) has already been exceeded with 16 sites completed so far this year.
2.2.5 Allocation levels for the stream fencing work remain low for this stage of the financial year with 29.6 km of work predicted by year-end against a target of 45 km. Another flyer drop to Rural Delivery letter boxes throughout the Tararua and Manawatu occurred in early February and the Freshwater team continue to work with Land, Biodiversity and River Management teams to explore further fencing projects. Discussions with Federated Farmers about the best approach to increase the allocation levels are continuing in February.
2.2.6 Interviews were held in early February for a 12 month fixed term Freshwater Management Officer role and a job offer has been made as a result of this process. The new person will start on 29 February.
2.2.7 During the reporting period six signs were installed along the river throughout the city reaches. These include information about swimability, including general precautions as well as a list of projects, including the Manawatu River Clean-up Fund work, the SLUI programme and Manawatu Accord work that are underway to improve water quality in the catchment.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 101
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
Photo3: Guide to safe swimming sign at Ahhurst.
2.2.8 The focus during the next reporting period will be ensuring the new Freshwater Management Officer is up to speed coming into the busy season, with autumn fencing jobs being completed and preparation underway for planting projects. The Freshwater team will also be attending the
Central District Field Days and assisting with the launch of the new Manawatu River Accord Action AnnexA Plan.
Freshwater Clean-up Fund:
Context The Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord draws $5.2 million from Central Government’s Fresh-start to Freshwater Clean-up Fund, which is part of a $30 million package to improve the water quality in the wider Manawatu River Catchment. The project is made up of eight sub-projects: 1 Wastewater treatment plant upgrades within Tararua District (Woodville, Dannevirke and Pahiatua); 2 Wastewater treatment plant upgrades within Manawatu District (Feilding and Kimbolton); 3 Land treatment of Shannon’s wastewater within Horowhenua District; 4 Stream fencing (primarily working with sheep and beef farmers and on dairy run-offs); 5 Native fish habitat restoration; 6 Whitebait habitat restoration; 7 Environmental Farm Plans; and 8 Community projects. Seven of the eight Clean-up Fund projects were completed by the end of August 2014, with components of the Tararua District Council (TDC) sewage treatment plant upgrades (STP) still to be finalised. A summary of some of the deliverables from these seven projects is in Table 2, which focuses on the outputs of the five Horizons-led projects. Other achievements included contributions to upgrades at Kimbolton, Feilding and Shannon sewage treatment plants.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 102
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Table 2: Summary of some of the achievements of the five Horizons-led projects. Environmental Community Total metres Total plants Fish passage Farm Plans projects fencing planted improvements completed completed 208,487 66,420 12 98 14
11 Item
Following completion of the works on the Horizons-led projects, the Governance Group approved the reallocation of funds accrued due to savings and interest accumulated. This reallocation was on top of decisions made during the work programme, which included more than $61,000 of additional funds being allocated to further stream fencing projects and $37,000 towards additional aerators for the Pahiatua plant. The new projects allocated funding from interest and savings made from other projects were $50,000 for a tephra treatment system at the Woodville treatment plant and an additional $50,000 for iwi-led community involvement projects. The iwi-led community involvement project incudes a video viewing, release of dung beetles and a signage project that will install 14 signs at key sites along the river. The signage will communicate the histories and cultural connections of iwi to the river. In February 2015 the Governance Group was informed that the Dannevirke land treatment project was no longer going ahead. This was due to the landowner being unwilling to take the effluent after learning that there is no certainty around the acceptance of stock for processing after grazing land where treated human effluent has been applied. After considering a number of options for the reallocation of these funds, the Governance Group approved reallocation of the budget to target phosphorus and nitrogen in the Dannevirke wastewater, and further aerator treatment at other sites.
Project Update
2.2.9 During this reporting period the Clean-up Fund project officially ended (on 31 December 2015). AnnexA 2.2.10 The final, end of project report is currently being prepared and is expected to be completed in February to enable the independent audit prior to being submitted to Ministry for the Environment (MfE) at the end of March.
2.2.11 The active projects during the reporting period included the Tararua District Council (TDC) wastewater upgrades and the community involvement projects led by iwi.
2.2.12 The TDC projects made significant progress (for example the tephra treatment facility shown in Photo 1). With final reporting still underway, the preliminary indications are that all of the milestones of the TDC project will be met, including additional work funded via interest from the project. The one item that was not achieved was the tephra treatment plant at Pahiatua, which was to be funded through savings made in the Pahiatua Treatment plant upgrade.
2.2.13 The iwi-led signage project has also continued to progress with work focussing on making final changes to the signs and confirming sites and permissions to install the signs. The first of the signs is expected to be unveiled by the Oroua River, near Feilding, in February.
2.2.14 The Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Incorporated (TMI) community involvement project released its first batch of dung beetles on a dairy farm near Palmerston North on 28 January (Photo 2).
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 103
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
Photo 1: Lined tephra bed tephra bed at Dannevirke STP site.
AnnexA
Photo 2: Dung beetles released on a dairy farm near Palmerston North.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 104
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Manawatu River Accord implementation work:
Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables Following a report back to the community in April 2014 on the water quality of the catchment and the
efforts to improve it, the focus of the forum has been Item 11 Item the ongoing implementation of the Action Plan, the Clean-up Fund project, and the refresh of the Action Plan. A Science and Mauturangi Maori Advisory Panel met in 2015 and produced a joint statement report to inform the Action Plan revision process. The findings have been presented to the Manawatu River Manawatu River Meetings completed, Leaders’ Forum. Leaders’ Forum Action Plan implemented Sector groups have held meetings to develop their actions and The Leaders Forum met on 17 December 2015 where a draft of the action plan was discussed. The launch of the new Action Plan is programmed for 11 March and the Minister for the Environment has confirmed he will be attending. A programme of events in the weeks preceding the launch is being planned and will likely include guided walks, a riverside clean-up, farm open days and a
dung beetle workshop.
In 2014-15 and 2015-16 the Manawatu Accord targeted rate work was in addition to the clean-up fund work. In the first eight months of the new financial year 10.2 km of fencing was completed and 8,947 native Work to complement the riparian plants were planted. Manawatu Accord AnnexA goals of the Manawatu implementation work Annual targets for riparian planting have been met. Accord Allocation for stream fencing projects remains low at 29.6 km predicted compared to a target of 45 km. Advertising and other efforts to find further jobs is occurring. Many of the community projects funded in 2014-15 are continuing in 2015-16. None of these have been completed at this point in the year.
The project timeframes were extended in 2014-15 to enable the work programme to be continued to 31 December 2015. All of the Horizons-led projects were completed by the end of August 2014. Manawatu Clean-up Work programme The two active projects during the reporting period Fund project completed were the Tararua District Council (TDC) projects and iwi-led community projects. Preliminary reporting indicates all of the TDC milestones will be met. The iwi-led projects have also progressed well, including the dung beetle release in January 2016
Lucy Ferguson FRESHWATER COORDINATOR
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 105
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
3 Lake Horowhenua Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-up Fund
3.1 Activity Report Item 11 Item
The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Freshwater Clean-Up Fund:
Context
The Lake Horowhenua Accord was signed on 4 August 2013. The Accord development was led by Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and draws together five partners: the Lake Horowhenua Trustees, who represent the beneficial owners of the lake; the Lake Domain Board; HDC; the Department of Conservation (DOC) and HRC.
The Freshwater Clean-up Fund project for Lake Horowhenua was announced by Minister Amy Adams on 25 February 2014. The total project cost is $1,270,500 with the Government’s Freshwater Clean-up Fund contributing $540,000. The balance of the funding is from local government (HRC, HDC) and in-kind support from industry (Tararua Growers Association and DairyNZ).
The eight projects selected for funding from the Clean-Up Fund project aim to improve the suitability of the lake for recreational use, reduce the inputs of sediment and nutrients into the lake and improve native fish populations within the lake. These eight projects represent an opportunity to make considerable gains in water quality and lake health in a short time: 1 Purchase and operation of lake weed harvesting equipment; 2 Provision of a boat wash facility in Levin township;
AnnexA 3 Riparian fencing and planting; 4 Installing stormwater treatment systems; 5 Installing a sediment trap/treatment wetland on the Arawhata Stream inflow to the lake; 6 Creating integrated drainage and sediment control plans for up to 500 ha of cropping farms; 7 Preparing sustainable milk production plans for dairy farms in the catchment; and 8 Fish pass and habitat improvement for native fish.
Update – Progress over the reporting period
Consents
3.1.1 The Lake Horowhenua Restoration consents were granted on December 15, 2015. These consents are for activities to restore the health of Lake Horowhenua through weed harvesting (reducing the effects of ammonia toxicity and toxic algal blooms), reducing sediment and nutrient input into the lake and to improve access to the lake for native fish.
3.1.2 One appeal was lodged by the 20 January when the appeal period closed. This process has now moved in to the phase where other parties are able to join the appeal as “274 parties”. This part of the process closes early in February.
Fencing and Planting
3.1.3 No fencing or planting projects were completed during the reporting period, however, another planting project of 600 plants has been committed to. A fish ladder was installed on the Patiki stream, a tributary to the lake. There is a population of giant kokopu just downstream of this fish ladder, which was installed at the end of a perched culvert. Photo 4
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 106
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
AnnexA
. Photo 4: Fibreglass fish ladder installed on the Patiki Stream
Integrated stormwater management project
3.1.4 The drainage and erosion management plans for growers in the wider Lake Horowhenua catchment have been completed as part of the Integrated Storm water Management Project. These plans cover 368 ha of land and make recommendations to land owners on how to minimise soil loss. A second progress report compiled by Dan Bloomer (LandWISE) outlines the work done to date and prioritises further work recommended in the plans. Dan will continue to meet with the growers during 2016 to help with the implementation of recommended works. To complement the work done on farm, the Arawhata stormwater infrastructure will be upgraded with phased upgrades to 6 km of drains and eight culverts programmed to start in February.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 107
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item
Image 1: Blocks analysed with the OptiSurface software to identify areas of erosion risk and surface runoff.
AnnexA 3.1.5 The weed harvester is now being housed in a secure lock up. The application to Maritime NZ has been submitted for Maritime Operator Safety System (MOSS) certification. Approval can take up to three months.
Te Mana o Te Wai Fund project
A key focus for the Lake Horowhenua Accord group in 2015 was the development of a Te Mana o Te Wai fund application for Lake Horowhenua. This application aimed to complete work to complement the restoration work already underway and to focus on matters of key interest to the Lake Trust and the beneficial owners. Projects included in the application included seeking funding for a detailed study of the sediment in the lake and options and costs to remove it. Other components of the application included a detailed catchment-wide fish population assessment, stormwater upgrades, riparian fencing, and planting and education programmes.
3.1.6 Funding for the project was announced on 12 November 2015 by the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, and Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox. The Government will be providing $980,000 from the Te Mana o te Wai fund to help improve the water quality of Lake Horowhenua. This funding is part of a $1.2 million project that includes efforts to increase community and iwi involvement in lake restoration (including providing a website), further water quality interventions, such as stormwater treatment upgrades, and provision of additional biosecurity protections for the lake. A further component of the work is investigation of the sediment in the lake and options to remove it in a cost-effective and ecologically sound manner. A further research oriented piece of work will investigate the fish populations in the catchment and provide recommendations on how best to restore these populations. Horizons Regional Council and Horowhenua District Council will make up the balance of the project with support from the Lake Domain Board and the Department of Conservation. The project also includes establishment of a plant nursery at the lake. The Lake Trust is the recipient of the funding and Horizons and Horowhenua District Council have been requested to have a representative on the governance group for this project.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 108
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
3.1.7 Staff and a Councillor continued to assist with the project with work focussing primarily on finalising the project plan and establishing the governance group terms of reference..
Summary of work
3.1.8 A summary of work carried out during the 2015-16 financial year as part of the Lake Horowhenua Item 11 Item Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-up Fund projects is provided in the table below.
Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables A range of meetings held. An application for further lake restoration funding has Regular meetings and been successful with the funding from the Te Mana o Te Lake Horowhenua progress on the Lake Wai Fund announced in November 2015. Work is now Accord Accord projects underway around the project plans, including the details of how Horizons’ co-funding will be managed in accordance with the approvals provided by Councillors in June 2015. Lake weed harvester purchased. Trailer to transport the harvester built. Harvester now in the Region. Application submitted to Maritime Safety for certification of the harvester. Lake Horowhenua Boat ramp design work completed. Lake weed harvesting Clean-up Fund A weed harvesting strategy report completed in June 2015. Resource consent for the weed harvesting was granted in December 2015. An appeal was received in January 2015.
A boat wash facility was installed and officially opened on AnnexA Boat wash facility July 18, 2014. Two community planting days held Riparian fencing and Fencing of 1,098 km of waterways and planting of
planting 2,897 plants completed. A community planting day was held on 2 August 2015. Drainage and sediment control plans developed for 368 ha of the 406 ha of cropped land identified in the Arawhata catchment. Implementation work underway. The focus of the project has widened from the Arawhata Integrated stormwater sub-catchment to all sub-catchments of Lake management plan Horowhenua. A second progress report has been compiled by Dan Bloomer (LandWISE); outling the main findings, measures the growers have already done to reduce soil loss, prioritisation of work to be undertaken and the next steps to the project.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 109
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables Geophysical survey and an archaeological report for the sediment trap project completed. Horizons has applied for an Archaeological Authority for
Item 11 Item this activity and this has been granted by HeritageNZ. The land for the sediment trap has been purchased Resource consent for the construction was granted in Sediment trap December 2015. A single appeal on the consents has been received. Technical work on the construction and efficacy of the sediment trap completed as part of the consent application indicates the trap alone will remove 30 percent of the annual phosphorus load from the streams into the lake and 25% of the annual sediment input from all of the streams. . All 10 dairy farmers have had plans developed for their properties and have been visited to discuss the Sustainable Milk Plans implementation of the plans. Further fencing has been identified through these plans and is now planned for completion this year. Fish pass at the Hokio Resource consent was granted by the hearing panel in
Weir December 2015, however, there has been one appeal.
Anna Regtein FRESHWATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER
AnnexA Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 110
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 11 Item Science
4 Water Monitoring & Research
4.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress (% progress)
YTD Reporting Period Target MEASURE ACTUAL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Track changes in the health of the Region’s water 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100%
resource *1
Inform policy and non-regulatory programme 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% development *1 Assess policy and implementation effectiveness *1 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100%
*1 AP/LTP targets AnnexA The water monitoring and research activity summary is arranged in four sections to summarise work on groundwater, surface water quantity (allocation), surface water quality and biomonitoring. A summary of targets for the 2015-16 reporting year has been provided in a table at the end of each section. A more detailed introduction to the monitoring and research programmes for this year is provided in the accompanying activity reports, along with brief updates for the reporting period (1 November to 31 January).
4.2 Activity Report (groundwater)
Groundwater monitoring programme:
Groundwater monitoring is carried out across the Region for State of Environment (SoE) monitoring purposes and to contribute to national monitoring programmes including the National Pesticides Survey, National Groundwater Monitoring and National Groundwater Age Programmes.
4.2.1 Groundwater level monitoring throughout the Region has progressed as scheduled. Irrigation season began in late October in the western coastal areas of the Region, with the majority of water takes for irrigation in use by mid December. Groundwater level monitoring throughout the reporting period continued to show similar measurements when compared with the same period in 2014. With 2015 winter-spring water level data now available for the Region, stabilisation of recently declining water levels in the Santoft area was noted in a number of monitoring wells in the area (Figure 1.1). While it is too early to establish the significance of this data, it does provide an indication of the response aquifers to rainfall recharge, in particular the pressure response in bores screened in deeper strata.
4.2.2 Groundwater quality monitoring was carried out in December for both the National Groundwater Monitoring Programme (NGMP) and State of Environment Groundwater Monitoring Programme. A total of 33 wells were sampled for a range of water quality parameters, including metals, nutrients, bacteria (E. Coli) and general chemical indicators. Up to 10 additional wells and springs will be
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 111
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
screened for suitability during March, with an aim to extend spatial coverage of the network throughout the Whanganui, Whangaehu and Northern Rangitikei Groundwater Management
Zones (GMZ), as well as the northern areas of the Rangitikei and Manawatu GMZs.
Item 11 Item
AnnexA
Figure 1.1: Monthly groundwater levels measured in Well 313053, located in the Santoft area, illustrate the trend noted in monitoring wells through the Region – with recovery of levels to similar to those measured during 2014.
4.2.3 A new automatic seawater intrusion monitoring site was established near Turakina Beach during December, to provide additional network coverage for the coastal Turakina and Rangitikei Ground Water Management Zones (GMZs). Seawater ingress into freshwater aquifers occurs naturally, or when pumping of freshwater draws saline water into the aquifer. Measurements of groundwater level are now being recorded at 15 minute intervals and conductivity monitoring is scheduled for installation during the next reporting period.
4.2.4 Horizons is increasingly including age tracers in both our monitoring and research programmes. Age tracers provide new, innovative approaches for conceptualising the regional groundwater- surface water system and informing the development of meaningful groundwater flow and transport models. This includes our participation in the National Groundwater Age Programme (co-ordinated by GNS Science). We are aiming to increase the number of wells in this programme to provide additional spatial coverage, with up to 10 additional wells to be sampled in March.
4.2.5 During the reporting period, an opportunity arose for Horizons to seek external funding through GNS Science to advance our research in groundwater science. Horizons was successful in securing $24,500 of external funding for both of the proposals submitted. The first project will utilise our age tracer data from the Groundwater State of Environment monitoring programme and additional age samples from our 2013 Low Flow sampling programme. These samples were analysed during 2015 and this project will provide the analysis and interpretation of the results to further our understanding of groundwater availability and groundwater and surface water interaction across the Region. The second project will provide a similar analysis and interpretation of data obtained through the hydrochemical and age tracer sampling that will be underway during February and March in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments. An agile response by the Science
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 112
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
team has enabled us to fast-track our work programme and reduce expenditure through cost- sharing with GNS Science.
Hydrogeology and Envirolink:
The overall management of the groundwater system relies on a good fundamental knowledge of 11 Item groundwater recharge, discharge and movement through the subsurface environment. While there is a general understanding of the geology and hydrogeology on a regional scale, further development and refinement of conceptual and hydrogeological models for groundwater management zones are required to maintain a cohesive approach to groundwater management in the Region.
4.2.6 Contracts are now in place for two hydrogeological projects for 2015-16. The first project will provide Horizons with a review of the existing conceptual hydrogeology of the Ohau and Waikawa catchments. The second project follows on from the Rangitikei-Turakina conceptual hydrogeology and water balance work that was completed during 2013-15, with the development of a groundwater transient flow model. Development of the model will aim to provide a representation of recent trends in groundwater levels and predict the potential pattern of groundwater levels, assuming different abstraction scenarios to derive a sustainable allocation limit.
Massey University Collaborative Research Programme:
A collaborative research programme by Massey University and Horizons Regional Council investigates the transport and fate of nutrients from farms to the waterways in the Tararua and Rangitikei catchments. The work is carried out through a range of PhD and MSc projects and at present we have three students contributing to different facets of this programme. 4.2.7 A presentation of these studies will be made as a separate item of the Environment Committee agenda.
4.2.8 Two PhD studies investigating the fate and transport of nutrients from farms in Tararua District are AnnexA now in their third (and final) year. The field components of both the PhD studies are now complete and both are well into the report writing stage. Initial drafts of chapters should be expected within the next reporting timeframe. Findings were presented by Aldrin Rivas and Ahmed Elwan at the recent Hydrological Society conference (December 2015) and will also be shared with delegates at the Fertiliser and Lime Research Centre workshop in February 2016.
4.2.9 Three MSc theses associated with the research programme were completed during the reporting period. Two projects were associated with the fate and transport of nutrients in the Manawatu and Rangitikei catchments, while the third investigated the use of radon as a tracer for groundwater contribution to stream flow in the Mangatainoka and Hutt rivers. These projects have advanced our knowledge of groundwater and surface water interaction in the Mangatainoka and Rangitikei catchments, providing direction to further monitoring and research programmes.
4.2.10 Our collaborative research programme with Massey University continues to develop, with an additional BSc Honours project now underway. This project is investigating nutrient flow pathways, including natural and artificial surface waterways and groundwater pathways from a dairy farm in the coastal sand country. The project will be carried out during 2016 and involves installing shallow piezometers to sample groundwater while concurrently sampling the nearby Koitiata Stream and artificial drains. This project follows on from an initial MSc study completed during 2015 and will complement a separate Horizons investigation into surface water quality in the coastal lakes area.
Resource Accounting:
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) recently identified land use intensification, particularly in the Rangitikei, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua areas, as a key opportunity for economic growth in Horizons’ Region (MPI, 2015). While supporting this growth, Horizons must also ensure the Region meets environmental targets set by regional and national policy, such as the 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 113
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
To achieve this, a significant investment has been made by Council to fast-track our knowledge and understanding of the Region’s groundwater resources. Focus areas include the Rangitikei and Turakina groundwater management zones, where increasing demand for water has led to Horizons increasing both our monitoring coverage and targeted research programmes to better inform policy implementation in these areas. The Horowhenua and Tararua management zones are the focus of investigations of nutrient
Item 11 Item transport and attenuation to identify opportunities for reducing nitrogen loadings in these catchments.
4.2.11 An extensive investigation of groundwater and surface water interaction in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments is now underway. This study will help us establish the availability of groundwater and surface water resources and, in conjunction with our bio-monitoring and estuary monitoring, inform the investigation of land use effects on water quality in these catchments. Both surface water systems form part of the larger Horowhenua management zone, where there is significant interaction between surface water and groundwater.
4.2.12 Sampling for radon at about 80 surface water sites throughout these catchments has been completed at 500-800 metre intervals along the catchments (Figure 1.2) and results will be available in February. Radon is a gas that can be detected in groundwater but quickly de-gasses when exposed to the atmosphere. Elevated concentrations detected in surface water enable us to identify areas of a stream, river or lake that are receiving flow from groundwater. This will be followed by a more intensive survey of groundwater and surface water quality and flow during
March.
AnnexA
Figure 1.2 Proposed locations for radon sampling throughout the Ohau and Waikawa catchments. A previous survey of the Waikawa Stream carried out in 2015 shows elevated radon concentrations above the confluence of the Waikawa and Manakau streams, with low concentrations shown in green representing negligible groundwater input and red and orange representing areas of groundwater inflow.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 114
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Policy Implementation:
Horizon’s One Plan Policy 5.6 provides for the general management of groundwater quality; however, further clarification and guidance is required to ensure a consistent and reasonable approach is taken to interpret and implement the aims of this policy. The development of a technical note will define a
methodology by which the existing groundwater quality should be defined and describe the measures Item 11 Item against which groundwater quality should be judged and the settings where different standards may be appropriate
4.2.13 An initial project proposal from PDP Ltd has been reviewed by Horizons staff and this work is now underway. The project team includes staff from Horizons Science and Regulatory teams.
Communication and Reporting:
Ensuring groundwater information is effectively communicated to Council, key stakeholders and the wider community is a key focus for this programme. Horizons also regularly contributes to the development of national monitoring and reporting of groundwater science.
4.2.14 Staff delivered presentations to the 2015 Hydrological Society conference in December. Stacey Binsted shared learnings from the analysis of water use data completed during 2014-15 in ‘Surface Water allocation in the Horizons region – consented versus actual water use’. Stephen Collins presented the results of his MSc study, ‘Assessment of Nitrogen Flow Pathways and its
Potential Attenuation in Shallow Groundwaters in the Lower Rangitikei Catchment’.
4.2.15 Abby Matthews (Senior Scientist – Groundwater) was recently elected Convenor of the Groundwater Forum. The Forum is held bi-annually and is attended by regional council groundwater scientists from around New Zealand and representatives from the Ministry for the
Environment. AnnexA
Abby Matthews SENIOR SCIENTIST – GROUNDWATER
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER & SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 115
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Project Key deliverables Progress to date Groundwater Monitoring Monthly groundwater (GW) levels Water level monitoring progressing to schedule Programme Quarterly GW quality Sampling of 30 wells was completed in Dec 2015
Item 11 Item Quarterly National Groundwater Sampling of 3 wells was completed in Dec 2015 Monitoring Programme (NGMP) quality New seawater intrusion site A new seawater intrusion monitoring station near Turakina Beach is now operating National age tracer programme Additional sites are being scoped for the national age tracer programme, to the north of the Region Data management GW quality data analysis Historic and current State of the Environment (SoE) quality data has been analysed by GNS Science to provide guidance for quality coding and state and trend analysis. New data management system This project will advance in 2016. Hydrogeology and Ohau/Waikawa conceptualisation Data has been provided to PDP Ltd Envirolink Santoft water balance conceptual Model and report on allocation volumes due June model development 2016 Massey University Winter water level and quality Both surveys are now complete
Collaborative Research survey Programme Monitoring for GW quality and lag Monthly sampling of the piezometers installed in times Tararua is now complete Completion of PhD studies Both PhD projects due for completion during the reporting year
Ohau / Waikawa surface Advice grant for field study An Envirolink-funded workshop was delivered by AnnexA water/ground water GNS Science to Horizons staff in Sept 2015 (SW/GW) Investigation Field GW/SW investigation Catchment-scale investigation of GW/SW interaction, GW recharge and lag times is being planned for Mar-Apr 2016 Santoft Resource Water level surveys Water level survey was carried out in Sept 2015 Accounting Project with a post-irrigation season survey planned for Apr-May 2016 to provide seasonal comparison of groundwater flow throughout the year Water user group A workshop with the Santoft water users group will to be scheduled for early 2016 Lake Monitoring Programme Bathymetric surveys Five lakes selected for bathymetric surveys (Lakes Wiritoa, Pauri, Heaton, Alice and William, subject to permission). Upper Manawatu Groundwater Availability Study Report was completed in Oct 2015 Groundwater Availability Policy, Consents and Guidance document for Policy 5.6 A technical note to be drafted by PDP Ltd in Resource Management consultation with Horizons to provide guidance as Act (RMA) Advice to the interpretation of Policy 5.6 – Maintenance of Groundwater Quality, is due Jun 2016 Communication and National engagement and reporting Staff presented at the Hydrological Society Reporting conference in Nov 2015 and attended the Dec 2015 Groundwater Forum.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 116
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
5 Water Allocation
5.1 Activity Report (water allocation)
Water allocation monitoring programmes: 11 Item
Horizons undertakes a wide range of core environmental monitoring programmes that include the measurement of river level, flow, rainfall, soil moisture and gauging rivers during low flows.
5.1.1 Workloads within the core monitoring programme are steadily increasing as we head into the busiest part of the year, with low flows in a number of rivers coinciding with the peak time for summer fieldwork.
Water metering programme and water quantity accounting:
Water metering is a fundamental component of managing water allocation. The data is crucial for assessing the actual volumes of water taken compared to consented volumes. The WaterMatters website is used to deliver information back to consent holders and the public, and for compliance purposes
Water use restrictions
5.1.2 During the reporting period of November to early January there were very few flow restrictions in
place with restrictions mainly affecting the eastern Ruahine catchments such as the Upper Tamaki in December. By late January further flow restrictions came into effect. As at 12 February 2016 there were 18 flow sites with restrictions in place and 13 sites nearing restriction levels (Figure 1). The table below draws directly from the information reported in WaterMatters and the map below
shows which catchments are in restriction (Figure 1). AnnexA
Figure 2: Low flow restriction summary published on Horizons WaterMatters website as at 12 February 2016. Areas shaded in white on the map indicate some water take restrictions are in place within these water management sub- zones.
5.1.3 For more detailed information on which sites are in restriction, WaterMatters reports the latest flows and number of consent holders potential in restriction here http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-environment/resource-management/water/low-flow-restrictions- summary/. The map of affected catchments is here http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing- environment/resource-management/water/watermatters/by-region/.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 117
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
National Water Metering Regulations
5.1.4 The project of ensuring that holders of water take consents continue to work toward meeting the National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting continues. A summary of the progress made by Horizons against the National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and
Reporting as at January 2016 can be seen in Table 1 below. Item 11 Item
5.1.5 Presently, the regulations are in effect to consents for takes of 20 litres per second or more, and for takes of 10 litres per second up to 20 litres per second. In November 2015 letters were sent to notify consent holders with groundwater and surface water takes between 5 litres per second and 10 litres per second that their requirements under the National Regulations (to provide water use data to the council ) come into effect on 10 November 2016.
Table 1: Summary of progress against National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting as at January 2016 Takes >20L/s Takes 10-20 L/s Takes 5-10 L/s 260 sites confirmed as metered 94 sites confirmed as metered This category not yet 3 sites not yet set up to abstract or not 15 sites not yet set up to abstract in force – interim using at all numbers suggest: 12 have been followed up with 95 consents in this 4 sites not required to comply with correspondence; working on flow meter category; regulations due to mode of abstraction installs, verifications or awaiting verification 52 have meters certification from company. installed already; 7 sites not yet metered / awaiting 31 have telemetry 3 pending flowmeter installation installation installed to date; Verification status of 2 where Horizons needs to review location meters: unknown. of water meter Numbers will change AnnexA 1 consent to be surrendered and be updated as
Total = 286 consents in this category Total = 115 consents in this category 10 Nov 2016 approaches. 178 of these confirmed as verified 37 of these confirmed as verified
5.1.6 In summary, there are 401 consents identified as requiring provision of water metering information to the Council as they provide for more than 10 L/s of water to be abstracted. Currently 287 out of these 401 consented water take consents provide data automatically. In the interim it is required that the remaining 114 consents will provide the water use data by manual methods. Of the 401 consents, 354 have been identified as having water meters in place and some further work is required with some of the remaining 47 consents. Some of these 47 consents do not have any infrastructure to take water in place and will only install meters when the rest of the irrigation infrastructure is put in place.
5.1.7 Verification of the accuracy of the meters for takes > 10L/s is also required as part of the National Water Regulations. Verification is required initially and then every five years. Presently a total of 215 of the 354 identified metered takes in this category have been confirmed as being accurate (verified) by certified verifiers.
5.1.8 Of the metered consents in the region (all sizes of water takes) a total of 398 are currently providing automated information to Horizons, typically by telemetry. Of these 398 consents, 28 have been inspected so far this year. There are 15 new telemetry installations pending.
5.1.9 Staff continue the work on ensuring standard conditions for water takes reflect changes in the Water Meter Data National Environmental Monitoring Standards (NEMS).
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 118
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Metering of Discharges to Water
5.1.10 Metering of the water takes from the region’s rivers is only one part of the water balance for the rivers. The volume of discharges to rivers is a further component of the water balance. As previously reported, a programme has been established to improve the measurement of the
volumes of effluent etc discharged to rivers. A stocktake of available discharge metering data has 11 Item commenced and during the reporting period, staff established automatic connections to the Manawatu District Council and Rangitikei District Council discharge inflow and outflow meter data. Further work continues to refine the connections to ensure that the data, naming conventions etc are all accurate. The next step will be to establish a programme for metering similar to that used in the programme for metering water takes that includes prioritisation of sites for metering and verification of the meters that are providing the data.
Policy implementation effectiveness: This project is working to establish the information Horizons requires to measure and report on the effectiveness of the One Plan allocation framework in achieving the management objectives and is also working to assist the implementation of the policy framework. 5.1.11 Staff continue to work with consent holders in the Upper Manawatu to progress the “renewal” of the 17 irrigation consents that expire over 2016. These consents include five water takes within two sub-zones that are currently over-allocated (the Raparapawai and the Tamaki). A majority of the consent renewal applications have now been received and at least six “renewals” for consents
that are within allocation limits have been granted to date.
5.2 Water Allocation Monitoring and Research Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date
Water Allocation Status and Surface and groundwater quantity AnnexA Ongoing. Monitoring Programmes monitoring including flow monitoring.
Ongoing; currently receiving data from 398 sites. Telemetry installed to automatically measure water use in the Region. 1 data-stream was installed during the reporting period with 15 awaiting installation. Annual inspections of water take flow Ongoing; 28 sites inspected meters as part of the telemetry to date for the season; none programme. of these require follow-ups Ongoing; to date 215 verifications completed by Verifications complete as per the third party suppliers National Water Metering Regulations. (Irrigation NZ certified Water metering programme / verifiers). National Water Metering Regulations Quality assurance and archiving of Ongoing; to date 28 sites historical water metering information. processed for 2014-15 data
Documentation on how to process water Complete use records. Meeting requirements of the National There are 401 consents in Water Metering Regulations – takes these categories. To date >20 L/s, and10-20 L/s must comply by 354 confirmed as metered, 10 Nov 2012, 2014 respectively. 287 of which provide data automatically, and 14 pending telemetry installation.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 119
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date
Communication Ongoing communication with Upper Manawatu consent holders to assist in process of consent renewal.
Item 11 Item Ongoing communication with water users as required throughout year. Support of PhD study in collaboration Project initiated in 2013. with Massey University and DairyNZ. Work ongoing with farmers Dairy Farm Water Use Project contacted and sites set up. Expected completion date is 2016. Work to improve fish monitoring information for use in measuring the effectiveness of the water Scope the scale and contents of a allocation (and other) Water Allocation Policy programme for water allocation policy policies is being scoped. Implementation Effectiveness effectiveness monitoring and reporting. Staff met with stakeholders to relay information on over- allocated catchments and to assist with identifying
possible solutions.
Stacey Binsted SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Jon Roygard AnnexA FRESHWATER & SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 120
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
6 Surface Water Quality
6.1 Activity Report (Surface Water Quality)
Water quality monitoring programmes 11 Item
Horizons undertakes a wide range water quality monitoring programmes that include monitoring of physico- chemical and biological parameters for State of the Environment Reporting, discharges, and contact recreation. The programmes include ongoing monitoring of rivers and lakes, and periodic reporting, including data provision to the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website.
Continuous nitrate measurement
6.1.1 In early February a joint research investigation between Horizons, Massey University and Ulster University (Northern Ireland) into the feasibility of continuous nitrate measurement commenced. If successful, this sensor will enable more assessments of the change in nitrate concentrations throughout the day and more accurate measurements of loads of nitrogen within river systems to better inform nutrient management and resource accounting.
6.1.2 The first step in the project is to validate the nitrate sensor for New Zealand river concentrations and river conditions. The sensor is currently installed in the Manawatu River at Teachers’ College
flow recording site in Palmerston North, which has relatively low nitrogen during low flow conditions. The testing at Teachers’ College will provide a good test bed for the accuracy of the sensor at the low end, and part way through the project the sensor will be moved to the Arawhata Stream, which is at the other end of the nitrogen concentration scale.
6.1.3 Staff from Massey and Horizons will be involved in taking water samples throughout the testing
period to validate the concentrations measured by the sensor to those measured through AnnexA traditional laboratory analysis and maintain the sensor. Figure 1 shows an example of the raw concentrations of nitrate from the sensor.
Figure 3: Raw nitrate concentration (g/m3) measured by the sensor (black line) and the One Plan annual average target for the monitoring site (red line).
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 121
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Resource accounting and joint research programme with DairyNZ
A joint research programme with DairyNZ investigating nutrient management opportunities and outcomes has been initiated. The project work is to focus on three separate water quality related projects during the
2015-16 year. The projects are outlined in the following paragraphs. Item 11 Item Project 1: Sources of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment in the Mangatainoka Catchment
This project investigates the likely water quality benefits and costs of increased uptake of good management practices in the Mangatainoka Catchment. The project builds on knowledge from the Mangatainoka Environmental Farm Plans project and will include practices such as effluent management, stock crossings and runoff from tracks. This project has been contracted to AgResearch to complete with input from Horizons and DairyNZ staff.
6.1.4 During the reporting period data was made available to AgResearch staff to carry out the analysis for this project. The report is currently being completed and a draft is expected by the end of March.
Project 2: State, Trends and Drivers of Periphyton in the Horizons Region
This project assesses the state, trends and drivers of periphyton in the Region. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been commissioned to undertake the project and a report is
expected to be delivered in May 2016. Monitoring data from Horizons periphyton monitoring, flow
monitoring and State of the Environment and discharge monitoring programmes has been provided to NIWA for inclusion in the project.
6.1.5 During the reporting period drafts of some of the chapters were provided to staff for review whilst
other chapters of the document are progressing. AnnexA Project 3: Resource Accounting
This project is to focus on contaminant accounting in the Region. The National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) requires allocation and contaminant accounts to be undertaken every five years for Freshwater Management Units within each regional council boundary. This project builds on progress Horizons has already made toward creating a set of contaminant accounts for the Region, with the aim of delivering resource accounts for monitoring sites that have sufficient information. The focus of the project with DairyNZ will be the Rangitikei catchment but many of the learnings from the work in this catchment will be utilised across the rest of the Region by Horizons staff.
6.1.6 Data for the contaminant load calculator has been provided to Massey University for analysis and work has commenced in-house to calculate point source loads. Contracting for the different components of the research has been finalised and a final report is expected in June 2016
Lake monitoring
The purpose of this project is to establish the current water quality and ecological state of a select number of lakes within the Region.
6.1.7 Sampling commenced in December at an additional three lakes (Lake William, Lake Koitiata and Lake Kohata), bringing the number of lakes added to the monitoring programme to date to four. Staff are working on permissions for a fifth lake and aiming for this to be included in the March sampling round.
6.1.8 The Trophic Level Index (TLI) is used to indicate the health of a lake by giving it a score between 1 (ultra-microtrophic) and 7 (hypertrophic); the higher the number the poorer the quality of the lake. The index is calculated using measurements of total nitrogen, total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a, and may include secchi depth data (water clarity data) where this is available. To put the index
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 122
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
into context, from 2005-2009 mean TLI for Lake Tekapo was 1.3 (microtrophic), Lake Taupo 2.1 (ogliotrophic) and Lake Ellesmere 6.9 (hypertrophic).
6.1.9 A number of lakes now have sufficient data to calculate a TLI using 3 parameters (TLI3) - Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Chlorophyll-a data. Figure 3 below puts these sites into context
with historical trophic status. All of the monitored lakes are between supertrophic and 11 Item hypertrophic, indicating nutrient enrichment in all.
6.1.10 A preliminary assessment against the national objectives framework for these lakes, using the limited dataset, suggests that all of the lakes are worse than the national bottom line for Total Nitrogen (TN) concentration i.e. are considered Band D as a part of the National Objectives
Framework.
AnnexA
Figure 4: Lake trophic level index.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 123
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
6.1.11 Weekly sampling of algal species commenced at Lakes Pauri, Wiritoa and Dudding as part of the contact recreation monitoring programme. In addition to this, Lake William is sampled by lake users for algal species composition on a weekly basis. The results of the algal species monitoring informs the district health board and private lake users for management of the lake. The results are published in summary form on the Horizons Safe Swim Spots page for lakes that are publically
Item 11 Item accessible.
6.1.12 Figure 3 below shows the biovolume of cyanobacteria in the monitored lakes compared to the guideline values for samples between 1 November 2015 and 1 February 2016. When trigger biovolumes are exceeded, toxin testing is undertaken to determine if the species present is producing toxins. When a lake tests positive for toxins, the relevant district health board is informed and decisions made around signage. It is assumed that toxins remain in the lake until the biovolume decreases below the 1.8 mm3/L guideline on two consecutive sampling occasions. Once this has occurred, warnings are removed. While the biovolume remains above the 1.8 mm3/L guideline, no further toxin testing is undertaken; the exception to this is if the species changes, in which case a different toxin may be produced and an additional toxin test is required. Even if toxin isn’t found in the sample, if the biovolume in a lake is greater than 10 mm3/L, staff would recommend the lake is closed for swimming. A summary of toxin results for each lake is provided in the following bullet points:
Lake Wiritoa was tested on two sampling occasions (November and December) and was found to have no toxins on both occasions.
Lake Pauri tested positive for toxins on the same two dates as Lake Wiritoa tested negative.
Lake Dudding tested negative for toxins in December but positive in early January.
Lake William tested positive for toxins in early November and December but negative in early
January. AnnexA
Figure 5: Cyanobacteria biovolume in lakes monitored as part of the contact recreation programme.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 124
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
6.2 Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Research Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Continuous water quality monitoring of sediment, pH and Continuous river water dissolved oxygen continues within the established River water quality monitoring measurement networks for these parameters. 11 Item quality Monthly river water quality monitoring sampling via the SoE Data from this project has been provided for reporting on the programme programme and discharge Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website. monitoring network 2014-15 monitoring completed for the season and a report on the results for the season is currently being drafted. Contact Contact recreation Monitoring for the 2015-16 season commenced on recreation monitoring completed and 4 November. monitoring reported via websites and Three new monitoring sites were added to the programme for programme annual report the 2015-2016 summer. The data is being uploaded to LAWA and Horizons’ Safe Swim Spots site. Monthly sampling of Lake Horowhenua resumed and is Lake Horowhenua ongoing. monitoring programme Lake buoy deployed and operational from July 2013. undertaken. Data from this monitoring programme has been provided for Lakes reporting on the LAWA website. monitoring, It is proposed that five additional lakes are added to this reporting and
monitoring programme for the 2015-16 year. Four of the new informing lake lakes were added by December 2015. restoration The NIWA and Waikato University funding bid successfully programmes Lake monitoring gained $5 million. Staff are working with NIWA and Waikato University to determine what work will be undertaken in the Horizons Region. NIWA has undertaken Lake SPI on 12 coastal lakes. Support for the During the reporting period staff attended meetings for the AnnexA Manawatu Updated Accord Action Plan Accord Action Plan update and provided support and meeting Leaders’ Accord spaces for sector groups. Responses to requests for further information related to the resource consents for Lake Horowhenua completed during Support for the the reporting period. Lake Lake Horowhenua Consents The Lake Horowhenua Resource Consents were granted in Horowhenua January but are now subject to appeal. Accord A monitoring programme has been undertaken to provide further information for the weed harvesting operation. Physico-chemical water quality data has been provided to NIWA for the periphyton project. An assessment into the potential nutrient reductions from the Horizons internal work first 35 nutrient management consents in the Mangatainoka programme Catchment has been completed and a report is at the formatting phase. Envirolink funding has been secured for NIWA to provide advice to staff on calculating nutrient budgets for lakes. Resource This work has been contracted to AgResearch to complete Accounting and DairyNZ/HRC Project 1: with input from Horizons and DairyNZ staff. Dairy NZ Joint Sources of Nitrogen, A workshop was held in August with experts from DairyNZ, Research Phosphorus and Sediment Horizons, Massey University and AgResearch to review and Programme in the Mangatainoka prioritise the risk matrix. Catchment Report Data has been provided to AgResearch to assist with monitoring. A contract has been established between DairyNZ and NIWA Dairy NZ/HRC Project 2: for this work to be undertaken. State, Trends and Drivers of Flow, periphyton and physico-chemical water quality data Periphyton in the Horizons from Horizons’ monitoring programmes has been provided to Region NIWA to enable reporting to be undertaken.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 125
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date
A workshop was held in July with Horizons scientists, Massey University, Landcare Research and DairyNZ to scope this project further. Contracts have been finalised with Massey University and DairyNZ/HRC Project 3: Landcare Research to undertake work for this project. Item 11 Item Resource Accounting A contaminant loading workshop was held in November. Data was provided to Massey in January for load analysis for the project. Collation of point source data is being undertaken in order to calculate point source loads in the Rangitikei Catchment.
Maree Clark SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
AnnexA
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 126
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7 Biomonitoring
7.1 Activity Report (Biomonitoring)
Biomonitoring: 11 Item
The Biomonitoring Programme features the aquatic macroinvertebrate, periphyton, cyanobacteria, didymo and freshwater fish monitoring programmes that form part of the water quality monitoring activity.
7.1.1 These programmes continued during the reporting period with the main focus being on the commencement of the major fieldwork season.
Phormidium (cyanobacteria in rivers) monitoring:
Phormidium continues to be a key issue for Horizons and we are partnering with external research agencies to better understand the causes of Phormidium proliferation in order to inform management practices.
7.1.2 Phormidium has been observed at a number of monitoring sites within the Region, but none of the sites havd coverage that requires health warnings to the public in early February 2016. The monthly periphyton monitoring run is used to check if Phormidium is present. If Phormidium is
present, a sample is collected and sent away for toxin analysis.
7.1.3 The project investigating ecological effects of Phormidium on macroinvertebrates is ready to commence as soon as rivers stabilise.
Macroinvertebrate monitoring:
Macroinvertebrate communities provide an integrated indication of the health and life supporting capacity of AnnexA waterways over annual time periods.
7.1.4 A draft report has been received looking at the state and trends of macroinvertebrate communities across the Region, including the data from the 2014-15 season. Comments on the draft have been provided with the report expecting to be finalised and ready for distribution in the next reporting period.
7.1.5 Monitoring has commenced for the 2015-16 season with 40 out of a programmed 97 sites completed to date. The frequency of freshes in January has meant that this programme is slightly behind schedule.
Periphyton monitoring:
Periphyton is the community of slime and algae that grow on the river bed. This project suite informs the relationship between periphyton growth, nutrient loads and stream flows
7.1.6 Horizons was successful in securing a Medium Advice ($20,000) Envirolink grant to investigate whether the preferential uptake of ammonia is a factor in nuisance periphyton growth downstream of point source discharges. This literature review will provide a monitoring framework to test if point source discharges are a significant contributor to periphyton growth.
7.1.7 The Ohau-Waikawa water quality/periphyton fortnightly monitoring programme continues. The Ohau-Waikawa project is supported by the new funding provided by Council to link the state of periphyton and other surface water quality indicators to land use and groundwater flows in key catchments. This programme is sampling 16 sites for water quality and 10 of those for periphyton fortnightly.
7.1.8 Monitoring has commenced in the Ohau/Waikawa catchment using nutrient diffusing substrates to look at the changes that may occur in the catchment in terms of nutrient limitations on periphyton
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 127
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
growth. This information helps inform us to how different parts of the catchment respond to different nutrients.
7.1.9 As reported in the Surface Water Quality section of the Environment Committee Report, the project to analyse the last six years’ of periphyton data has been initiated. This analysis is co-
Item 11 Item funded by DairyNZ and will be the most comprehensive of its type in New Zealand. A draft of the entire report is expected to be received in the next reporting period with the final report expected in May.
Freshwater Fish Monitoring:
The Freshwater Fish Monitoring programme involves an ongoing survey of fish species abundance at selected fishable SoE sites, re-checking the Sites of Significance - Aquatic as part of the One Plan policy effectiveness assessments, and undertaking exploratory surveys to further our knowledge.
7.1.10 During the reporting period, monitoring of the remaining Sites of Significance – Aquatic that had not previously been re-surveyed commenced.
7.1.11 Horizons was successful in securing a Medium Advice ($20,000) Envirolink grant to investigate ways to successfully monitor piharau (lamprey) populations in the Whanganui Catchment. We currently have 30 sites that have been recommended by Dr Cindy Baker from NIWA in which to place piharau pheromone detectors. These are currently being deployed in the Whanganui Catchment and will be collected after at least 21 days. Analysis of the samplers will enable us to see if piharau are present upstream in the catchment.
7.1.12 As previously reported, Horizons has been working with Dr Mike Joy at Massey University to develop an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for fish. Staff have been running the IBI over all the fish data that is contained in the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFWD) that exists for
AnnexA the Region to assess the Region’s freshwater fish populations. Maps showing the current state are expected to be completed in the next reporting period.
Estuary monitoring:
7.1.13 Work has commenced on the Envirolink funded project engaging NIWA and Wriggle consultants to assess the susceptibility of the Region’s estuaries to nutrients and sediment. The project is partly funded via Envirolink and partially funded through the additional funding provided by Council in the Long-Term Plan. The project includes a desktop assessment and a field work component (where Wriggle visits most of the Region’s estuaries during January and February). A report on findings is due for completion by 30 June 2016.
7.1.14 The report will collate available information for each estuary and assess the key features that relate to eutrophication and sedimentation issues (e.g. macroalgae, soft muds, artificial substrates, saltmarsh, seagrass, gross nuisance areas, clarity, sediment oxygenation, depth and presence of holes (associated with stratification risk). The project will utilise the recently developed Estuary Trophic Index (ETI) to define each estuary’s trophic and sedimentation state and subsequently provide monitoring recommendations and priorities.
7.1.15 Broad scale habitat mapping of Manawatu Estuary was undertaken by Wriggle consultants in late January 2016 alongside their site visits for the susceptibility project above. The monitoring data will provide a more comprehensive look at Manawatu Estuary’s trophic state and dominant habitat types.
Lake monitoring:
7.1.16 During the reporting period, NIWA Hamilton undertook macrophyte surveys in 10 of the Region’s lakes. These surveys used the Lake Submerged Plant Indicators (LakeSPI) methodology that has been developed by NIWA and allows a comparison of lakes at both a regionally and national scale.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 128
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7.1.17 A report summarising the surveys and recommendations will be finalised in the next reporting period.
7.1.18 LakeSPI is carried out using scuba diving/snorkeling to record key information features about aquatic plant structure and composition within a lake. Survey data is then used to generate three
LakeSPI indices: 11 Item
Native Condition Index, which characterises the status of native vegetation within a lake.
Invasive Impact Index, which captures the degree of impact from invasive weed species.
LakeSPI Index, which provides an overall indicator of lake ecological condition.
A high Native Condition Index is favourable, while a high Invasive Impact index is undesirable. The higher the LakeSPI index, the better the overall health of the lake. For ease of reporting LakeSPI status, lakes are also classified into five lake categories according to
the value of the LakeSPI Index: Excellent, High, Moderate, Poor, Non-vegetated.
AnnexA
Photo 6: Kakahi similar to the ones found in Lake William and Dudding during the LakeSPI surveys.
7.1.19 During the reporting period an additional round of macrophyte mapping was undertaken on Lake Horowhenua to look at any inter-annual changes in its distribution. At the same time, NIWA also repeated a macrophyte distribution survey that was completed in 2002 at 13 sites across the lake. The distribution survey is due to be completed again in February to look at the changes that the collapse of the Potamogeton crispus causes on other macrophyte species within the lake.
Logan Brown SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 129
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7.2 Biomonitoring Monitoring and Research Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date A draft copy of the state and trends report for macroinvertebrate SoE information on the communities has been reviewed with the report is expected to be health of the Region’s Item 11 Item Invertebrates completed in March waterways (both state and trend) Monitoring has commenced for the 2015-16 with 40 out of 97 sites completed to date. Monthly monitoring is ongoing. The fortnightly monitoring in the Mangatainoka Catchment has SoE information and ceased as 24 months of data has been collected. Monthly knowledge of the monitoring at these sites will continue. relationship between Periphyton flow, nutrients and An Envirolink bid was successful to commission NIWA to research periphyton growth whether ammonia is preferentially taken up by periphyton, around the Region resulting in faster growth and higher biomass being reached. The Ohau-Waikawa intensive monitoring programme has commenced with seven rounds of sampling completed to date. When seen on periphyton monitoring runs, samples of cyanobacteria from around the Region are collected to investigate regional toxin production. Over the 2015-16 summer, the Cyanobacteria Benthic cyanobacteria prevalence of cyanobacteria has been too low to sample. The research on the ecological effects of cyanobacteria will
continue this year following a recommendation made by Cawthron.
Monitoring occurs in May, November and February each year. Monitoring to check for Didymo didymo incursions. The February round of sampling has commenced. The November 2015 samplings all returned negative results. Monitoring of the remaining SOS-A sites that have not been
AnnexA resurveyed has commenced. An Envirolink bid was successful in providing a monitoring Monitoring programme methodology for lamprey, building on the summer’s previous work. Freshwater completed and Advice is to be provided by NIWA and completed prior to June Fish reported on. 2016. The tool for calculating the Fish Index for Biotic Integrity ($5,000 Envirolink project) was received in October. The report is available on request. Bacterial Contribution of regional Five sites have been sampled as part of the national programme Community data to a national level and samples sent to Auckland University for analysis. Index research programme. Collection of reference data is continuing. Stream Ecological SEV model specific to An Envirolink application for a fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Valuation the Horizons Region for the Region was successful. This will inform the development of (SEV) the SEV model for Horizons’ Region. A final copy of the report is due to be delivered by Dr Mike Joy prior to the end of October. Broad scale estuary monitoring programme The broad scale estuary monitoring of Manawatu Estuary was established and a conducted in late January. Data is being collated. Estuary report completed on monitoring the susceptibility of the During the reporting period the assessment of the susceptibility of Region’s estuaries to the Region’s estuaries to nutrients and sediment commenced. nutrient and sediment The report is expected by 30 June 2016. inputs. During the reporting period NIWA undertook surveys in 10 of the Region’s lakes to assess the macrophyte communities using the Macrophyte LakeSPI methodology. Lakes communities within the Lake Horowhenua macrophyte distribution was remapped to look monitoring Region’s lakes at inter-annual variation. The macrophyte distribution surveys completed in 2002 in Lake Horowhenua were redone.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 130
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
8 Environmental Research and Monitoring
8.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period 11 Item Measure Actual Target 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Complete State of the Environment report including reviewing and updating environmental 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% indicators *1 Undertake policy and programme implementation effectiveness monitoring and provide input into 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% programmes and policies that are in development *1 Environmental information is made available to the public via Horizons’ website, Environment 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% Committee reporting and on request, including contributions to national level reporting *1 Monitor and report on air quality *1 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100%
*1 AP/LTP targets
8.2 Activity Report
A summary of the progress made against the targets for the year is in the table at the end of this section. Further brief updates for the reporting period from November 1 2016 to January 31 2017 are overviewed in
the sections below. AnnexA One Plan Monitoring and Evaluation, and SoE Reporting:
The objective of this programme for 2015-16 is to continue to develop a framework for assessing the effectiveness of the One Plan in delivering intended outcomes, and to report on the State of the Environment. Staff time spent on this activity is generally been encompassed within the reported outputs of environmental monitoring programmes.
8.2.1 The Envirolink project for regionally tailored climate change scenarios based on the International Panel for Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth projection (IPCC5) continues. An overview of this project is programmed to be presented by Dr Clive Howard Williams to the Catchment Operations Committee in February.
Air Monitoring:
Horizons continues to monitor concentrations of fine particles under 10 microns in diameter (PM10) in Taihape and Taumarunui, the Region’s two gazetted airsheds (or air quality monitoring areas). It uses BAMs (Beta Attenuation Monitoring) instruments located in the two towns.
8.2.2 Monitoring for the months April 2015 through to mid January 2016 shows that there were no 3 further exceedances of the PM10 50 µg/m standard. As previously reported, there were exceedances of the alert level (above 35 µg/m3) recorded during the September-October period.
8.2.3 The public awareness campaign to raise awareness of collecting dry firewood over summer months progressed with the final script being drafted in January and a broadcast schedule being firmed up with the radio stations. This radio-based campaign was to begin in February and is Region-wide.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 131
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Provide Environmental Information:
The provision of environmental information through servicing data requests directly or via working with other teams continued during the reporting period.
Item 11 Item During the reporting period a large data request for information on Sediment in Rivers was processed for NIWA, which is completing project work for the Ministry for the Environment on potential water quality targets for inclusion into the National Policy Statement for Freshwater.
Envirolink Update:
The Envirolink Fund Provides funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment – Science and Innovation for regional councils to engage research from the Crown Research Institutes and universities. Horizons has been a proactive subscriber of the fund.
8.2.4 As previously reported, Horizons has nine active projects funded from Envirolink from this financial year, totalling $119,810, for research. They are:
. Groundwater / Surface water interactions in Ohau and Waikawa stream; . Advice on how to undertake nutrient budgets to coastal lakes using Lake Horowhenua as a test case;
. Advice on integrating coastal lakes monitoring and management into one system to assess current and future priorities; . Advice on a regional wetlands monitoring programme to track the state and trend in wetland condition;
. Advice on whether periphyton preferentially uptakes ammonia compared to nitrate; AnnexA . Advice on the use of pheromone samplers to locate and monitor lamprey; . Climate change projections for Horizons based on IPCC 5th Assessment; . Advice on understanding the estuaries within the Region, with regard to their susceptibility to nutrient enrichment; and . A literature review of the effects of feral goats on erosion.
8.2.5 Over the period, a further project was added to the list but has yet to be approved by Envirolink. This medium advice project ($20,000) with Landcare Research is to investigate options and implications for implementing nutrient management rules using farm-specific soil data according to Overseer best practice standards. If funded, the progress of the project will be reported in the Land Monitoring and Research section of the Environment Committee report.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 132
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
8.3 Environmental Research Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Ongoing through a range of programmes. Development of the SoE Portfolio and Science One Plan Monitoring Operational Plan 2015-16. 11 Item Ongoing information and Evaluation, and collection and analysis to An assessment of the water quality outcomes from State of Environment inform future SoE reporting the implementation of the One Plan rules around Reporting nutrient management in the Mangatainoka Catchment has been completed and reported to Council. Information provision to the Information provision to external organisations has public and external continued. agencies The AirQuality Matters and Water Matters websites Provide environmental continue to provide up to date information on a daily information basis. Information provision via The annual update of water quality information for the websites LAWA website was completed in September. Analysis of the state and trend of water quality was completed for the nation’s data in October.
Air quality monitoring and Air quality monitoring continues in the Taihape and
Monitoring and reporting Taumarunui airsheds. reporting on Education material on encouraging healthier heating environmental health Air quality public education is being promoted and our website is being updated. (air quality) campaign – cleaner heating A radio campaign for firewood collection is programmed for February 2017
AnnexA
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 133
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
9 Land Research and Monitoring
9.1 Plan Targets
Item 11 Item The Land Research and Monitoring section reports on the Land Management Research and Monitoring service in the Annual Plan, which includes the fluvial monitoring and research, and land monitoring and research activity. This work is closely linked to other research and monitoring activities, and provides information for management of gravel takes, flood protection schemes, land application of wastewater, and the SLUI programme.
Brief updates for the reporting period (1 November 2015 to 31 January 2016) are provided in the sections below. A summary of the progress made against the targets for the year is provided in Table 1 and in the summary table at the end of this section.
Reporting Period YTD Target Measure Actual 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Track changes in the health of the Region’s 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% land and fluvial resource *1 Inform policy and non-regulatory programme 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100%
development *1
Assess policy and implementation 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% effectiveness *1 *1 AP/LTP targets
AnnexA 9.2 Activity Report
Fluvial monitoring and reporting:
The fluvial survey programme provides information on the changes in levels of aggradation or degradation of river channels and berms. This information is important for the management of gravel takes from the Region’s rivers and flood protection schemes, and as an indicator of the efficacy of programmes such as SLUI. The work is coordinated by a cross-organisational team involving Science, Operations and Survey staff.
9.2.1 As reported previously, the follow-up work from mid-2015 flood events resulted in a delay in the initiation of the river cross-section survey programme. As a result, the Lower Rangitikei River survey has been re-scheduled for 2016-17. As a consequence of the rescheduling of the Lower Rangitikei, other projects have been brought forward.
9.2.2 The re-survey of the Oroua River (129 cross-sections from the confluence of the Manawatu River to Kiwitea Stream near Feilding, including up to four sections of the Kiwitea Stream and several significant sites in the upper reaches of the Oroua River toward Apiti) has been brought forward as the need to check for gravel accumulation in this system has become somewhat urgent. The work began during the reporting period and at the time of writing this report was 25% complete.
9.2.3 A re-survey of the Makino Stream near Feilding has also been brought forward. The survey will consist of 57 cross sections starting below Boness Road bridge to Reid Line bridge.
9.2.4 The other potential survey (subject to budget availability) is the Waikawa Stream south of Levin includes seven existing cross sections and up to 27 new cross sections in the upper reaches of the stream to determine the gravel resource in this system.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 134
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
9.2.5 Reporting on these surveys is completed by Horizons engineers within the River Management team and presentations from some of the soon to be completed reports are to be reported to the Catchment Operations Committee in 2016.
Gravel extraction: Item 11 Item 9.2.6 The collection and storage of information on the amount of gravel being extracted from schemes and consents is ongoing. The figure below depicts the volumes of gravel extraction so far this financial year compared to previous years. At the end of the first sex months of the financial year, the reported gravel extraction amounts were greater than those reported in the previous three years.
600,000
) 3 500,000
400,000 Q4 300,000 Q3
200,000 Q2
Q1
100,000 Gravelvolume extracted (m
0 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
Financial Year AnnexA
Figure 6: Extracted gravel volumes from 2011-12 financial year to the 2015-16 financial year showing the extraction in each quarter (Quarter 1 (Q1) is July, August and September).
Sedimentation and river schemes:
A new long-term research programme is being developed to investigate options that extend the life of the flood protection infrastructure by improving knowledge about sediment movement and deposition in rivers.
9.2.7 During the reporting period staff from the River Management, Survey and Science teams continued to develop the scope for this project. A final project brief is expected to be completed in February for the first year’s work as a part of this multi-year project. The focus of the initial year’s work is on improving the level of understanding of the size and extent of the aggradation issue. To do this the work is investigating the potential to undertake a LIDAR survey over the Oroua River and Lower Manawatu River to determine the level of aggradation and degradation in comparison to LIDAR data collected about 10 years ago. Subject to testing of the feasibility of this analysis, the aim would be to complete the LIDAR survey in February, March or April 2017, tying in with low flows and the cross-section survey work being undertaken in the Oroua River.
Predicting water quality outcomes from the Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI)
9.2.8 Horizons engaged Landcare Research to provide an update on the analysis linking the farm scale actions from the SLUI programme to the SedNet NZ model to determine likely in-river sediment outcomes of SLUI implementation to the end of 2015. The outcomes of this modelling are presented in the following paragraphs.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 135
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
9.2.9 A previous Landcare Research report for Horizons (Dymond et al., 2014) estimated that works completed so far as part of the SLUI programme were predicted to decrease the overall sediment discharge in the region by 9.2% or 1.2 Mt/year between 2004 and 2043. This scenario, referred to as Scenario 0, was repeated with updated information including the 2014 and 2015 Whole Farm Plan (WFP) coverage and works. The revised estimate was a 10.6% decrease from 2004 baseline
Item 11 Item levels (a 1.4 Mt/year decrease, Figure 2).
9.2.10 Catchments exhibiting the most notable improvements include the Owahanga, Akitio and the Manawatu above Weber Road (near Dannevirke) with each having additional sediment yield reductions of 11%, 6% and 4% respectively. These catchments have notable changes in area of WFPs between 2013 and 2015, with increases ranging between 45% and 132%. The predicted improvement in the area upstream of the Manawatu at Weber Road site reflects a focus on this
area, which continues to report declining water quality trends.
AnnexA
Figure 7: Regional reduction of sediment yield for Scenario 0 from Dymond et al. (2014) updated to include 2014 and 2015 WFP coverage and implementation works.
9.3 Land Research and Monitoring Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Survey work in the Kawhatau River, Makuri-iti Stream, Upper Wanganui River, Upper Mangahao River and Mangatainoka River was completed last year. Fluvial Cross-sectional survey The 2015-16 survey programme for the Lower Rangitikei River monitoring and information to inform has been re-scheduled to 2016-17. research to gravel management and Oroua River survey brought forward and has started. inform gravel flood control works management Makino Stream and Waikawa River also scheduled for 2015- 16. Gravel extraction data continues to be collected and collated on a quarterly basis. DHI has scoped development of a catchment/sediment transport model to inform long-term management decisions Scoping of a model to around flood protection schemes. Sedimentation inform long-term Staff have reviewed the report, River Management staff have and river management of schemes revised the project scope, and the Survey team is completing schemes in relation to sediment a stocktake of the information available for the project. Project team is determining the immediate priorities for collection of new information.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 136
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date
Staff advice and input Lake into fluvial/land Staff have provided technical input into the integrated Horowhenua implementation projects stormwater management project and the sediment trap implementation as part of the Lake wetland project of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund
projects support Horowhenua Clean-up project. 11 Item Fund project The Dairy Shed Effluent Storage Calculator and the Town Effluent Calculator, tools developed by this research portfolio, continue to be used on a regular basis. Horizons continues to support the on-site wastewater system Information around trials at Rotorua, along with many other funding partners. wastewater treatment on Staff continue to support and assist Territorial Authorities Informing land land, including dairy farm (mainly the Horowhenua and Rangitikei District Councils) and treatment of effluent, on-site the general public with approvals of design and queries about wastewater wastewater treatment on-site wastewater systems design and management. and land treatment of The trial of municipal effluent treatment using tephra at municipal wastewater Dannevirke continues. Research findings from the tephra investigations are now being scaled up into full-scale systems. The Manawatu Clean- up Fund has supported systems being constructed at Dannevirke, Pahiatua and Woodville. Envirolink funding was received to investigate the efficacy of the SLUI programme under different predicted climate change Predicting water Information on expected scenarios. quality outcomes water quality results from Landcare Research has provided a final report. A summary of from the SLUI work under different results were reported in the Environment Committee Report of Sustainable SLUI management October 2015. Land Use scenarios An updated estimate of water quality outcomes from SLUI
Initiative (SLUI) AnnexA implementation to the end of 2015 has been provided by Landcare Research. Envirolink funding has been received to investigate leaching Report and gather on representative sheep and beef farms in the Mangatainoka Nutrient leaching information on nutrient Catchment. from sheep and leaching from sheep and beef farms beef farms in the Landcare Research has provided a final report. A summary of Mangatainoka Catchment results were reported in the Environment Committee Report of October 2015.
Support of events that DairyNZ and Horizons held a workshop in August to share Supporting complete extension and knowledge around nutrient management, including looking at extension and research communication some of the nutrient management approaches from other research with farmers and the regions and at the new science underway around nutrient communication industry management.
Harold Barnett ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Maree Clark SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 137
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
10 Biodiversity Research & Monitoring
10.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Item 11 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure Target 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Track changes in the health of the Region’s 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% living heritage *1 Inform policy, habitat protection, and 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% biosecurity programme development *1 Assess policy and implementation 20% 20% 20% - - 60% 100% effectiveness *1 *1 AP/LTP targets
10.2 Activity Report
A summary of progress made against the targets during the year is provided in the table at the end of this section. Further brief updates for the reporting period (November 1 2015 to January 31 2016) is included in
the sections below.
Regional Biodiversity Monitoring Programme:
The objective of this project is to review Horizons’ current terrestrial and wetlands biodiversity inventory and monitoring systems, to check that these match the information needed to assess the effectiveness of policy implementation. The project also aims to determine what additional monitoring is needed to assess policy AnnexA effectiveness and Horizons’ capacity to adopt the nationally consistent regional council biodiversity indicators.
10.2.1 During the reporting period, the team designed an objective method of assessing the progress of the Top-200 Bush Remnants programme. This method includes “inputs” measures to account for activity and “outputs” measures to account for state and trend in condition. The team is working with the Habitat Protection team to iron out any inconsistencies with the view of having the method fully integrated into Top-200 work planning before June.
10.2.2 The monitoring protocol is in addition to the work on the proposed Regionally Consistent Biodiversity Indicators. The review of Horizons’ biodiversity monitoring programme will check that the Top-200 monitoring and any proposed national monitoring are not inconsistent with each other or cause duplication of effort. Presently, there is no inconsistency or duplication.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 138
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Forest Fragment and Wetlands Monitoring Programmes:
The objective of this activity is to continue to collect and maintain records on the condition and extent of high priority bush remnants and wetlands, and to track changes over time.
10.2.3 The re-survey of palustrine (swampy) wetland systems in the Manawatu Catchment continues. To 11 Item date 18 sites have been re-assessed for wetland extent and condition.
AnnexA
Photo 1: Periwiti’s Wetland (Koputaroa) January 2002. Note the grazed pasture and shrubs in foreground.
Photo 2: Periwiti’s Wetland January 2016. Since fencing, the grazed pasture has given way to rank grass, toetoe and raupo. The native shrubs have also thickened up. The fire that went through this wetland in December 2011 didn’t reach this portion. Raupo areas affected by fire appear healthy, although the shrub component (similar to that in the photos above) is missing.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 139
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Totara Reserve Regional Park Outcomes Monitoring:
As part of the package of preserving and enhancing the natural heritage of the Totara Reserve, Horizons undertakes the control of invasive weeds and animals that threaten indigenous biological diversity. This project covers a range of activities that, together, inform decision-making regarding the control of pest plant
Item 11 Item and animals, and the biodiversity outcomes that accrue.
10.2.4 The 2015-16 bird monitoring concluded during the reporting period, and the second run of the 2015-16 rat and mustelid monitoring was conducted during the reporting period. Results are currently being assessed.
Pest management support:
Horizons prepares pest management plans for managing pest plant and animal threats to the Region’s productive capacity and living heritage. Largely drafted during 2014-16, Horizons’ new Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and Regional Biosecurity Strategy and Programmes (BSP) documents are proposed to replace existing pest management strategic documents. The RPMP and BSP are due out for public consultation during 2015-16.
10.2.5 During the reporting period, Science staff assisted in the coordination of the public submission process and contributing to higher level regional council discussion of the National Policy Direction (NPD). This includes a quick re-check of the proposed RPMP for consistency with the NPD as guided by a draft guidance document received from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) just before Christmas.
10.2.6 At the time of writing this report, staff had undertaken the Pest Plan roadshows. The roadshows were held in Whanganui, Taihape, Taumarunui, Dannevirke, Levin and Palmerston North. Public turnout was variable with eight in attendance in Whanganui, five in Taumarunui, nine in Levin, five
AnnexA in Palmerston North and zero at each of Dannevirke and Taihape. Attendees included farmers, interested urbanites, district council staff, peri-urban lifestylers, DOC staff, members of the Forest And Bird society, and the District Health Board.
10.2.7 Work on the literature review of the effect of feral goats on soil erosion and soil conservation programmes has been initiated. This work is funded through Envirolink (Small Advice Grant of $5,000).
Coastal Lakes Prioritisation and Aquatic Biodiversity Support:
This project supports the expanded monitoring programme for coastal lakes and aquatic biodiversity projects in the Water Quality Monitoring and Research Portfolio, where those projects inter-relate with work on identifying the state of habitats and the assessment of the Region’s living heritage.
10.2.8 During the reporting period staff were communicating with Waikato University regarding the University’s recent success in gaining funding from Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) for research on lake ecosystem restoration in New Zealand. The aim is to attract the University to Horizons’ Region for aspects of that research and dovetail it with the strategic level work staff are doing around prioritising lakes and providing for a more coordinated approach to the management of the lakes. The conversation is still very young and the University cannot give any assurances that there will be research work in Horizons’ Region. Even if the work is not conducted in the Region, it will be useful for future lakes management as it is anticipated that the research findings will be generic.
Biodiversity information requests:
The objective of this project is to provide support, information and advice – over and above formal contribution to the resource consenting and compliance technical assessments – to other staff, the public, and individuals seeking to undertake activities that may trigger the One Plan biodiversity rules or biodiversity restoration works.
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 140
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
10.2.9 Staff provided information and advice to the public nine times during the reporting period.
10.3 Monitoring Summary Item 11 Item
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Rat and mustelid First round of monitoring complete and data being assessed. Totara Reserve outcome monitoring Bird monitoring Monitoring for 2015-16 has started Lake wetland Field survey complete and data being analysed against Dr margin Singer’s recommendations. Forest fragments and assessment wetlands Swamp wetland Trials of the assessment method have been competed and assessment 18 wetlands have been surveyed.
Biodiversity (no activity to report) Regionally consistent indicators biodiversity monitoring Biodata Services and information sharing (no activity to report) Stack Formal information requests, which result in a letter with Provide disclaimer, are being served at a rate of approximately one information per fortnight. Information requests Undertake RMA Advice being delivered as required. advice site visits One Plan Provision of pre-consent advice to potential applicants implementation continues. AnnexA Final version of RPMP drafted and public consultation RPMP underway. Pest management support Pest management Staff presented BSS weeds work at NETS. advice Envirolink for feral goat impacts on soil erosion granted.
James Lambie SCIENCE COORDINATOR
Jon Roygard FRESHWATER & SCIENCE MANAGER
Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 141
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Report No. 16-49 Information Only - No Decision Required
BIOSECURITY & HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRESS REPORT 12 Item
1. PURPOSE 1.1. The purpose of this item is to introduce to members of Council’s Environment Committee, the Habitat Protection and Biosecurity progress reports for the period 31 December 2015 to 29 January 2016. 1.2. This item also summarises the key points and operational highlights contained within this report.
2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-49 and Annex.
3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.
4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.
5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS Habitat Protection (Biodiversity) 5.1. This period has seen the team busy on maintenance of existing sites and assessments of new ones. 5.2. Although no new sites have been added so far this year, a number are close to having the assessments and work plans completed to allow the annual plan targets to be met. 5.3. There has been good progress with the track upgrades at Totara Reserve and several funding applications have been made for the playground at the reserve. 5.4. Good comments coming in about increased native birdlife at the reserve. A report was received from a member of the public that a Kaka had been sighted at Dannevirke School.
North Island Kaka (Steve Wood)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 143
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Biosecurity 5.5. Good progress with the PCO programme so far this year. 5.6. OSPRI has signalled quite a large release of land currently worked by them for Possum
control. The total suggested far exceeds any previously forecast numbers. Item 12 Item 5.7. The aerial Rook work has concluded for the year. Some opportunity for ground poisoning has been presented. 5.8. The annual Purple Loosestrife control has been undertaken with the usual planning and procedure applied. 5.9. The Tutsan Action Group has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release Biocontrol agents for Tutsan. 5.10. The Regional Pest Management Plan has achieved another couple of milestones as submissions close.
6. SIGNIFICANCE 6.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.
Craig Grant Bill Martyn ACTING GROUP MANAGER MANAGER - BIOSECURITY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT & HABITAT PROTECTION
ANNEXES A Biosecurity and Habitat Protection Progress Report
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 144
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item Biodiversity
1 Biodiversity Protection Programme
1.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period Target Measure YTD % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual *1 . New high priority wetlands under 0 0 0 0 3 0%
active management *2
. New high priority wetlands under 0 0 0 0 NA NA partial management . New high priority bush remnants 0 0 0 0 6 0% under active management *2
. New high priority bush remnants AnnexA 0 0 0 0 NA NA under partial management . Environmental Grants supported *2 3 7 10 25 40% . Environmental Grants completed 0 2 2 25 8% (paid out)
1.2 Targets - Life to Date Progress
Reporting Period LTD LTD Measure % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Target . Total high priority wetlands 0 0 0 56 59*3 95% under active management *2 . Total high priority wetlands 0 0 0 24 NA NA under partial management . Total high priority bush 0 0 0 110 118*3 93% remnants under active management *2 . Total high priority bush 0 0 0 28 NA NA remnants under partial management . *1 Annual target . *2 AP/LTP targets . *3 Life to date target
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 145
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
1.3 Activity Report
General:
1.3.1 During this reporting period staff inspected more actively and partially managed bush and wetland
Item 12 Item sites to check fencelines and ascertain the requirements for pest plant control this season. Some of these sites were treated for pest plants. REAs (Rapid Ecological Assessments) were completed on several bush remnants and a wetland. The wetland and most of the bush remnants will eventually be added to the list of managed sites. There are enough sites poised to enter the managed lists to meet the annual targets.
Community/private biodiversity:
1.3.3 Ten biodiversity-related Environmental Grant and Biodiversity Support applications have been approved so far this year. Two have been claimed on.
High priority wetlands:
1.3.4 No new high priority wetlands were added to the managed list during this period. The total number of high priority wetlands under active management is 56 and the number of sites under partial management is 24.
High priority bush remnants:
x A x 1.3.5 No new bush remnants were added to the list of actively managed sites during this period. The total number of high priority bush remnants under active management is 110 and the number of sites under partial management is 28.
Anne
Aaron Madden ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – BIODIVERSITY
Bill Martyn MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 146
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
2 Community Biodiversity
2.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress (% complete)
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Measure Target 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Totara Reserve Regional Park . Totara Reserve Regional Park 10% 20% 25% 55% 100% (Manawatu)
Collaboration Projects . Manawatu Gorge (Palmerston North 5% 20% 30% 55% 100% and Tararua) . Pukaha/Mt Bruce (Tararua) 15% 15% 20% 50% 100% . Kia Wharite (Ruapehu) 15% 15% 25% 55% 100% . Save Our River Trust 50% 5% 20% 25% 100% (Horowhenua) . Manawatu Estuary (Horowhenua) 5% 20% 20% 45% 100%
Community Projects (10 supported)
. Massey Hill (Palmerston North) 0% 20% 40% 60% 100% . PN Weedbusters (Palmerston 5% 10% 50% 65% 100% North and Manawatu) . Rangitikei Environment Group
5% 15% 35% 55% 100% AnnexA (Rangitikei) . Waitarere Beach (Horowhenua) 5% 10% 55% 70% 100% . Bushy Park (Whanganui) 0% 20% 30% 50% 100% . Tawata Mainland Island (Ruapehu) 10% 20% 25% 55% 100% . Kitchener Park/Awahuri Forest 10% 20% 20% 50% 100% (Manawatu) . Moawhango Community Project 0% 30% 20% 50% 100% (Rangitikei) . Turitea Reserve (Palmerston North ) 10% 20% 20% 50% 100% . Te Potae o Awarua (Rangitikei) 0% 25% 40% 65% 100% . Lower Kahuterawa Stream 10% 15% 20% 45% 100% (Palmerston North )
New community projects supported as resources permit . Gate Pa Bush Restoration 0% 20% 20% 40% 100% (Manawatu) . Ohau Beach Walkway 0% 15% 20% 35% 100% (Horowhenua) . Friends of Waitoetoe Park 0% 30% 20% 50% 100% (Palmerston North)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 147
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
2.2 Activity Report (Community Projects)
2.2.1 A lot of these projects have a large weed control component and the excellent summer weather has been very welcome.
Item 12 Item Waitarere Beach (Horowhenua):
2.2.2 Most of this season’s weed control work on the dunes has been completed. Planning is underway for a winter planting of the spinifex that has been grown at Poroutawhao School.
Rangitikei Environment Group (REG – Rangitikei):
2.2.3 Roadside programme is near completion. Rangitikei District Council has increased its annual contribution to $20,000 and has employed a Parks and Reserves Manager. Both of these actions should speed up progress on the reserves and roadsides.
Weedbusters (Palmerston North and Manawatu):
2.2.4 Weedbusters is progressing well in the Palmerston North and Feilding areas with 320 sites revisited. The majority of old sites are clean and the others have been re-treated.
Massey Hill (Palmerston North):
2.2.5 This site is looking good following a recent sweep for weeds.
x A x
Aaron Madden
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – BIODIVERSITY Anne Bill Martyn MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 148
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
3 Collaboration Projects – Horizons / DOC
3.1 Activity Report (Collaboration projects)
Kia Wharite (Ruapehu/ Whanganui): 12 Item
3.1.1 Four out of five whio surveys for the season have been completed; a good number of pairs have been seen on both rivers. It looks like we are on track for a good fledging rate with a large proportion of the chicks we have seen over the surveys reaching fledging class. Results will be reported at the conclusion of the survey season.
3.1.2 Stoat and cat trap catch data at the Whio Security Site is now recorded using a smartphone app called ‘Walk the Line’. This app replaces the use of trimbles to record data and has the advantage of being available for community groups undertaking predator control.
3.1.3 Final post-operational 1080 monitoring using tracking tunnels is scheduled for March. Results will be reported after the March monitoring period.
3.1.4 Annual summer weed control on the Whanganui River trench began over December, predominantly targeting tutsan, Japanese walnut, wattle, pampus and African feather grass. Of note was a higher occurrence of tutsan and African feather grass than previous years, and a good
kill has been achieved on these species. Further spraying in the river trench is scheduled for February.
3.1.5 The Tutsan Action Group (TAG) has been granted permission to release two species of biological control agents in the Taumarunui area. This tool has the potential to assist our future control
efforts. AnnexA 3.1.6 Wanganui Aeroworks has been awarded a contract to undertake aerial spraying of Himalayan and Japanese honeysuckle in the Mangapurua Valley this summer and a contracted team will also be undertaking ground control in the area.
3.1.7 Goat control of the 16,817ha Matemateāonga block of the Whanganui National Park commenced in November. The majority of this work is completed and 1,894 hours of goat hunting has been carried out, with 750 kills averaging 2.5 hours per kill as at January 19 2016. Hunters have been audited throughout the period by Department of Conservation (DOC) staff. Hunters are recording their distance covered each day using track logs, as well as that of their dogs; this ensures accurate mapping of the areas hunted. The hunters have also been contracted to undertake minor track, hut and helipad maintenance in the area.
3.1.8 We are experiencing a bumper season on the Whanganui Journey with evidence that visitor numbers have increased from previous seasons. This is a significant achievement given the damage sustained to infrastructure last year through the June flooding. High visitor numbers means greater exposure to the Kia Whārite project area.
3.1.9 We have commenced conversations to seek funding for additional biodiversity work through the Air NZ Biodiversity Fund. This fund currently assists on-ground biodiversity projects alongside four Great Walks.
3.1.10 A proposal has been prepared to host a group of Air NZ executives on the Whanganui Journey as part of a series of Great Walk familiarisation trips. We see this as a great chance to display the work undertaken in the Kia Whārite partnership; confirmation of this trip is pending.
3.1.11 DOC will be supporting Horizons staff in coming months with the Councillors’ visit and potentially Ministers attending.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 149
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
3.1.12 The traps in the Retaruke catchment were serviced five times over the reporting period, with 31 stoats, 10 weasels and 261 rats destroyed. The 350 traps in the Aramahoe Reserve have been serviced twice with 9 stoats, 37 weasels and 125 rats caught.
3.1.13 A new project area has been established in Ohorea Bush, a 340 hectare bush block on Ohorea
Item 12 Item Station 10km south of Raetihi. This new initiative is a partnership between Horizons, Atihau Whanganui Incorporated and Ngā Whenua Rāhui, and is aimed at protecting populations of North Island brown kiwi that live in the area. A network of DOC 250 traps have been established and will be serviced on a four-weekly rotation. Ngā Whenua Rāhui manages a very successful goat culling programme throughout the area and on surrounding farmland, which has resulted in low goat populations. Atihau Whanganui Incorporated has arranged a contractor to open some of the old logging tracks and repair crossings to allow better quad access for trap servicing and other pest control activities.
3.1.14 Over the coming months we plan to establish a network of bait stations throughout the Ohorea Bush area for possum control and also arrange to have some vegetation monitoring plots established.
DOC Community Fund Updates in Whanganui area
3.1.15 DOC Community Fund recipients Castlecliff Coastcare and Bushy Park Trust have worked with local DOC staff to prepare monitoring and reporting frameworks. Bushy Park Trust has received its
first grant payment while Castlecliff Coastcare is awaiting signoff from DOC.
3.1.16 Total funding for Bushy Park is $146,100 over two years and for Castlecliff Coastcare it is $15,000 x A x over three years.
Coastal Reserves in Whanganui Anne 3.1.17 Strategic marram grass control is being undertaken along dune slacks at the high value Tapuarau Reserve to promote the natural movement of sand and the preservation of ephemeral wetland habitat; marram grass threatens this habitat by stabilising dune systems.
3.1.18 The Nationally Critical Pimelia actea was planted at five sites during spring in the Tapuarau wetland habitat through the DOC threatened plant programme.
Ohakune
3.1.19 Visitor numbers to DOC-managed sites have been strong over the summer. An update on numbers will be provided to the meeting.
Pyp grass and white bryony in Rangitikei
3.1.20 The MPI-led National Interest Pest Responses (NIPR) aim to eradicate selected established pests from New Zealand. The pests on the list are selected for national response because of their potential to have a significant impact on our economic, environmental, social and cultural values.
3.1.21 DOC undertakes work for MPI in the Rangitikei on two of the plant pests – pyp grass and white bryony. Both work programmes are proceeding well. A summer team has been undertaking work on white bryony and is on schedule to complete its programmed eradication work. Most plants the team is coming across are younger plants. Two rounds of searches for pyp grass have occurred with none found. Two full rounds and a full compartment search will occur before the end of the financial year.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 150
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Old man’s beard (OMB) Rangitikei
3.1.22 Horizons and DOC continue to work well to co-ordinate agencies efforts targeted at OMB in the Rangitikei District and restrict it from entering Ruahine Forest Park. Support is also being provided to the Rangitikei Environment Group (REG) as it works through the additional funding provided
through the DOC Community Fund, and the increased engagement from landowners. 12 Item
Whio protection – Ruahine Ranges
3.1.23 Ruahine Whio Protection Trust and Aorangi Awarua Trust have both undertaken additional work as a result of funding and support from DOC, Horizons and others. Another volunteer trapping line is scheduled to be placed in the eastern side of the range in February. The re-population of whio in the range contributes to overall efforts and messages regarding the health of rivers in the region, particularly in the Manawatu River Catchment. He Tini Awa has previously provided funding for whio programmes.
Manawatu Estuary
3.1.24 Horizons and DOC funding has enabled work on the new $179,000 culvert at Whitebait Creek, Foxton Beach, to commence. The current culvert under Seabury Avenue poses a significant migration hurdle to whitebait. The site of the culvert is significant as it is just outside the Ramsar
area and the creek goes through to significant wetland areas in the Horowhenua.
3.1.25 Work on spartina has continued as part of the weed plan for Manawatu Estuary created last year. Volunteer uptake for certain parts has not been as high as expected. We will be reviewing our approach.
3.1.26 Horizons is extending the mustelid trap network by installing 40 more traps around the Foxton
Beach township. Foxton Beach School students have created artwork for every trap and a small AnnexA sign, including two students’ names, will be placed at every trap site in the hope that it will reduce vandalism. Horizons staff will train 30 keen locals who have volunteered to carry out daily checks on every trap.
Totara Reserve
3.1.27 Work on Phase 1 of the Fern Walk upgrade was completed before Christmas. The highlight is 700 metres of new track that means walkers no longer have to share the track with the neighbouring farm or even leave the forest.
3.1.28 Phase 2 of the upgrade is the installation of two pedestrian bridges and a number of boardwalks. Both of the bridges required building consents and one – to be placed within the road reserve adjacent to a road bridge – required approval from Manawatu District Council. All approvals have been given and tender documents for this phase will be out soon.
3.1.29 The playground replacement is another step closer thanks to a $10,000 grant from the Mainland Foundation. This adds to the $20,000 grant from Eastern and Central Community Trust. We have had a rejection from the Harcourts Foundation but are waiting to hear from five other potential funders.
3.1.30 With all the fine, settled weather we have enjoyed this summer the campgrounds have been popular. Numbers will be confirmed in the next report.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 151
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge
3.1.31 The first on-the-ground weed work on old man’s beard commenced in January, following a number of years of aerial spraying. Work is scheduled to be completed for the season by early March. The focus of the ground work is the core part of the southern side of the Manawatu Gorge Scenic
Item 12 Item Reserve adjacent to the walking track and on the top terraces. This work should reduce seeding of old man’s beard over this part of the reserve which is also the least modified part of the reserve.
3.1.32 Volunteer pest control for stoats has continued and two bait-fills for rats and possums will occur prior to the end of the financial year.
3.1.33 Indicators are that visitor numbers have been very strong over the summer. Data is scheduled to be downloaded in late February.
Pukaha
3.1.34 Trapping for ferrets, stoats and weasels continues on a four-weekly rotation. Bait is being adjusted in mid-February in response to the expected spike in mustelid population as juveniles leave the nest. The December 2015 mustelid monitor provided a 0% track rate for mustelids (relative abundance). Trapping in the buffer has been proceeding well and contributing to the low tracking rate within the Pukaha Reserve.
3.1.35 Catch tally from 1 November 2015 to 31 January 2016:
Organization Ferrets Stoat Weasels Cats Rats Hedgehogs Others x A x Horizons RC 8 2 57 49 32
Anne 3.1.36 The new innovative chimney houses for catching cats (Timms traps) are in place and ‘weathering in’ (an expression used for describing the process of the trap gaining a neutral scent in the field). These traps continue to be checked as part of our monthly trapping schedule.
3.1.37 Kiwi species management is proceeding well with eggs hatching in December in January and a number of health checks carried out on adult kiwi.
3.1.38 Kokako surveys have been undertaken over summer as weather has allowed, in order to gather new recordings to support understanding of population size.
3.1.39 DOC Community Fund has contributed funding for Pukaha to hold a BioBlitz (biodiversity inventory) on 26-27 February. This event has the dual purpose of gathering experts in order to increase understanding of the biodiversity at the site and engaging the general public in discovering its values. The findings will contribute to future management plans.
3.1.40 The visitor centre has had a strong summer visitor period and good progress is being made on the new walkthrough aviary.
Conservation Management Strategy (CMS)
3.1.41 The Wellington Conservation Board is scheduled to consider a new format for the Conservation Management Strategy at its meeting on 20 February. An updated timeframe will be advised at the meeting.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 152
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
DOC change
3.1.42 DOC has completed the roll-out of the revised structure in the Lower North Island. As part of the roll-out the Director General is strongly encouraging DOC staff to be focused on how DOC does
and can contribute to the social, economic and cultural health of the New Zealand success story. Item 12 Item
Bill Martyn ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY
Allanah Irvine DOC Partnerships Manager (Acting) – Palmerston North
AnnexA
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 153
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
x A x Anne
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 154
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
Biosecurity Activity (Animals)
4 Possums (Possum Control Operations - PCOs)
4.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Maintenance PCOs (by 3 6 15 24 69 35% count) Initial operational areas (by - - 2 2 15 13%
count) Overall programme control 3 6 17 26 84 31% (by count) Control maintenance 157,938 75,620 147,567 381,125 725,687 53% operational areas (by area) 138,192
Control initial operational AnnexA 0 8,407 39,386 47,793 35% areas (by area) *1 116,000*1 Overall programme control 157,938 84,027 186,953 428,918 863,879 49.6% (by area) . *1 AP/LTP targets
4.2 Activity Report
4.2.1 Good progress continues to be made in the 2015-16 PCO operational work, with just under half of the overall programme completed. Fifteen maintenance operations and two initial jobs have been completed, with work underway on a further 27 programmes. All operational work is on schedule to be completed by the end of the financial year.
4.2.2 Landowner cooperation continues to be good with no major issues over the reporting period. All service providers are supplying GPS data and post-operational reports to the required standards.
4.2.3 TBfree NZ has provided us with ‘draft’ information of the areas that it is likely to be provisionally ceasing over the next five years. Approximately 26 operational areas totalling 291,000 hectares of rateable land have been identified for cessation. Most of these operational areas are located in the Ruapehu District with the balance in the Whanganui and Rangitikei districts. With these operations included, the PCO area will total approximately 1,550,000 hectares, which is 389,000 hectares greater than estimated in the 2006-07 implementation plan.
4.2.4 TBfree NZ has indicated that a final decision on cessation will be made in February.
Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 155
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Map 1: 2015-16 PCO (Year 10)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 156
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
5 Rooks
5.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Target % Measure Actual 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th a. Existing rook colonies (rookeries) 84 69 - 69 Record 0% b. New sites - - - - Record 0% . Total rook colonies (rookeries) (a + b) 84 69 - 69 Record 0% . Aerially treated rookeries *1 0 67 - 69 100% 97% . Ground based rook control operations 0 0 2 2 -
. Report ground control efficacy (% NA - 90% 90% 90% estimated kill) Contract . Ensure all contractual obligations are signed completed before annual rook control Yes - - Yes 100% with aerial programme begins provider
. *1 AP/LTP targets
5.2 Activity Report
5.2.1 Following reports of rook damage to recently established winter feed crops, Regional Response staff investigated and initiated ground control on three properties in the Ohakune and Waiouru
areas. AnnexA
5.2.2 At two of the sites the rooks took the pre-feed bait readily and the toxic application was successfully completed. At the other site, the rooks appeared to have been upset by a helicopter that was working in the area and didn’t return to the crop so the poison operation was aborted. The landowner was advised and agreed to let us know if the birds returned.
5.2.3 Subsequent ground inspections of the two areas that were treated indicated a good kill with no live rooks observed and a number of dead birds found under nearby plantations.
Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 157
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Map 2: Rook distribution post control November 2015
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 158
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
6 Amenity Pests
6.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Actual . Manage and record all amenity pest enquiries using Frontline corporate 88 164 203 455 Record 100% database *1 . Respond to all enquiries within 48 88 164 203 455 100% 100% hours of receipt *1 . Close out or action all enquiries within 88 164 203 455 100% 100% 5 working days of receipt . Report on all amenity pest enquiries Reported below . *1 AP/LTP targets
6.2 Activity Report
6.2.1 A total of 203 enquiries were received during the reporting period.
6.2.2 The highest percentage of enquiries were from landowners in the Manawatu District, followed by Palmerston North City and the Whanganui and Tararua districts.
6.2.3 All landowners making enquiries were contacted / visited within the prescribed timeframes and
provided with advice, equipment (traps etc) or small amounts of toxins to help them deal with their AnnexA particular pest issue.
Pest Animal Enquiry Summary by Pest Type for Period November 2015 - January 2016 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Possums Mustelid Magpie Rabbit Rook Cat All Other This Year 63 43 9 50 4 13 21 Last Year 42 29 16 53 13 16 11
Graph 1: Pest Animal Enquiry Summary – by Pest Type
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 159
Environment Committee 09 March 2016 for Period July 2015 - August 2015
60
50 Item 12 Item 40
30
20
10
0 Palmerston Manawatu Tararua Rangitikei Wanganui Ruapehu Horowhenua North District 55 40 20 18 37 8 25
Graph 2: Pest Animal Enquiry Summary – by District
AnnexA
Photo 1: Possum caught in a live capture trap. (R Wilman)
Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 160
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7 Monitoring
7.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual . Monitor agreed sample of ex- 0 0 2 2 5 40% TBfree PCOs . Monitor agreed sample of new 0 0 5 5 14 36% (initial) PCOs . RTC of sampled ex-TBfree PCOs - - 2.5% - <5% *1 . RTC of sampled maintenance - - 5.9% - <10% PCOs *1 . *1 AP/LTP targets
7.2 Activity Report
7.2.1 Seven monitors were completed over the reporting period.
7.2.2 Six of the seven monitors met the predetermined targets, the exception being the Cheltenham PCO which returned a slightly higher result (a 10.8% Residual Trap Catch Index (RTCi) against a 10% target). Control will be intensified in the areas where higher possum populations were
identified. AnnexA 7.2.3 The last of these years’ monitor designs (nine in total) have been completed and we are in the process of tendering these jobs.
Monitor results for the life of the Possum Control Operation Average RTC results (June 2006 to January 2016) Ex-TBfree operations 5% target Initial operations 10% target 2.22% average (35 monitors) 4.38% average (48 monitors) Overall average 3.47% (83 monitors)
Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 161
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Map 3: 2015-16 PCO monitoring map.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 162
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
7.3 Biosecurity Activity (Animals) Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date .2015-16 operational work has commenced . Operational .Tender process has been completed.
implementation 12 Item .MOH permits obtained for 2015-16 . Possum Control . Success indicators Operation .Seven monitors completed . .Eleven post-operational reports have been received . Data management .GPS data uploaded into the GIS database . Aerial nest baiting .The 2015-16 aerial programme has been completed. .Two ground operations have been successfully . Rook Management . Ground control completed. . Rook database .Reviewed and updated .Frontline database reviewed daily . Respond to .Individual enquiries actioned enquiries/complaints within agreed timeframes. .Database updated regularly .Environment Committee Report
. Assist landowners with .Ongoing – advice provided as appropriate advice on appropriate pest .Loan trap and other equipment supplied . Amenity Pest control techniques. Programme Initiate appropriate enforcement action against . No action required to date land occupiers who do not comply with strategy rules.
. Ensure that information AnnexA on control methods for . Ongoing (updated as required) amenity pests is available on Horizons’ website. . Possum Control .The 2015-16 monitoring plan has been completed Operation .Seven of nineteen monitors have been completed. . Animal Pest . RPAMS (Regional Pest Monitoring Programme .Rabbit night count prep work underway (monitors will Animal Management be undertaken in April-May 2016). Strategy) Monitoring Report
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 163
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 164
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item Biosecurity Activity (Plants)
8 Zero Density/Containment Species
8.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD Measure % . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th Actual . Survey & record status of all known and new Zero Density & Containment 3,680 - - 3,680 - species . New sites 0 - - 0 - . Total sites 3,680 - - 3,680 - . Zero Density progress (cumulative 2,255 - - 2,255 61%
sites at zero density) AnnexA
8.2 Activity Report
8.2.1 Species worked on during this period include banana passionfruit, blue passionflower, Chilean rhubarb, Darwin’s barberry, Japanese knotweed, mothplant, old man’s beard, Pinus contorta, and purple loosestrife.
8.2.2 Purple loosestrife control around Lake Horowhenua has started and most areas have been treated, with work progressing down the Hokio Stream. The Wanganui site at Virginia Lake is now managed by Whanganui District Council contractors as it is at sufficiently low levels to be handed back.
8.2.3 Knotweed at Ongarue has been treated. This is an ongoing site. Although it is nowhere near as large as when first discovered, the plant is very persistent and we are constrained in the chemical options due to the site being within the town and adjacent to a stream.
8.2.4 Pinus contorta has been targeted in a number of joint programmes on the central plateau. Staff are engaging with KiwiRail, Rangitikei District Council, Hawkes Bay Regional Council, Oruamatua Kaimanawa 1V trust and the Department of Conservation to either highlight work, facilitate work to happen or undertake work in a joint programme.
8.2.5 With a change of staff member covering the Pohangina valley the officer now looking after the area visited most land owners in the old man’s beard (OMB) control area to sign them up for an aerial control operation. We had a very good response with land owners interested in what was happening and all very happy to see the officer and to get the chance to talk about weeds. We had no opposition to the programme. We flew the aerial on 14 January. GoPro video of the event was edited by the Communications team and uploaded to the Stuff.co.nz website 2 on January 29 as
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 165
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
part of an article about why we control OMB. http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu- standard/news/76243803/horizons-uses-helicopter-spraying-to-address-old-mans-beard
8.2.6 OMB is also being controlled across the rest of the region with historic sites showing good control
and numbers of plants reducing; however, new sites continue to be found. Item 12 Item 8.2.7 During the OMB Pohangina signups our staff member came across some massive Chilean rhubarb plants at the end of Norsewood Road, adjoining the ranges on Jock Beilski’s property. The garden site was massive, and in keeping with the invasive potential of Chilean rhubarb (Gunnera tinctoria), it had also spread behind a woolshed, down the track and down a bush gully. There
were two massive clumps in the gully with dozens of seedlings.
AnnexA
Photo 2: Large Chilean rhubarb taking off from garden site, (J.Keast).
8.2.8 A large block of Chilean rhubarb in the Tararua District was split between staff and contractors to best reflect the type of work required. The map shows the work done in the Kaitawa area.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 166
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Map 4: Map showing all control on Beeches and Knox estate
Craig Davey ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – PLANTS
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 167
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 168
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
9 Production Species
9.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Measure Target % . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th Actual . Record and treat all known & newly discovered Zero Density 528 - - . 528 NA NA species . New sites 0 - - . 0 NA NA . Site total 528 - - . 528 NA NA . Progress toward Zero 315 - - . 315 - 60% Density target
9.2 Activity Report
9.2.1 Complaints or enquiries were received about blackberry, broom and gorse. Species worked on during this period include African feather grass, Chinese pennisetum, and woolly nightshade.
9.2.2 Staff dealt with a number of complaints during the period. We issued a number of Request to Clears (RTC) and three Notice of Directions (NOD).. Issues were mostly between private occupiers but one concerned roads in the Tararua District, the rail corridor and gorse invading river flats during high water from an upstream source/s; this issue is still open as we try to find a workable resolution.
9.2.3 Chinese pennisetum sites were inspected in the Whanganui River corridor during January. This AnnexA persistent grass weed of pasture has long been under management programmes across two farms at Koroniti. Spread is thankfully limited at this stage but as land use changes and many of the harder farm blocks are left to revert through either managed retirement of transferring from stock to honey, the focus of control and containment needs to be maintained.
9.2.4 African feather grass is another of the threat species to production land for which we manage the control. We have sites in the Tararua, Horowhenua, Wanganui, Ruapehu and Rangitikei districts. All sites are persistent and require annual treatment to keep on top of seedling recruitment. Sites include farmland, forestry, roadside and riverside sites. The Department of Conservation manages sites in the Whanganui National Park and elsewhere Horizons staff and contractors keep the plant at low levels.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 169
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Photo 3: African feather grass at Browns beach. Plants are starting to flower at this time of the year, (J.Keast).
Craig Davey ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 170
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
10 Biological Control
10.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period 12 Item Measure YTD Actual . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th . Monitor and report on bio agent release sites 0 3 12 . 15 - sites inspected . Monitor and report on bio agent release sites 0 - 13 . 13 - new releases/transfers
10.2 Activity Report
Tutsan
10.2.1 The Tutsan Action Group (TAG) held a meeting on December 8 to discuss its application to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for release of two insects in spring 2016. We have now
finalised the EPA application and have officially submitted it to EPA. This application is now open
to the public, along with DOC, Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) and Maori, for comment. We expect a decision by the end of June 2016 and will know if a public hearing is required by March 2016. We don’t expect any opposition to the application at this time.
10.2.2 Landcare Research identified several potential control agents that could work together for control
of tutsan. The application proposes the introduction of two agents, the tutsan moth (Lathronympha AnnexA strigana) and the tutsan leaf beetle (Chrysolina abchasica). The larvae of the tutsan moth feed on the leaves and stems of the plant in spring, but inhabit the fruits of tutsan when these become available, consuming the seeds inside. The leaf beetle larvae browse on the leaves, in sufficiently large numbers to cause defoliation.
10.2.3 Both insects are being reared inside the containment facility at Lincoln University and there are good numbers of beetles. Landcare is slowly building the numbers of moths ready for release permission to be given next year.
Tradescantia
10.2.4 Staff checked the Landcare Research site of tradescantia leaf beetles twice with Paul Peterson. The first time we collected adults and released them in Palmerston North, and the second time we collected larvae and took them to Whanganui. Five hundred larvae from the Massey field trial site were released at the Quaker settlement on Virginia Rd, Whanganui. This is a significant moment in the tradescantia biological control journey as these two sites are the first to be populated from an existing local nursery site. In response to some publicity, we have a long list of people wishing to receive these agents. The two sites we chose first were with people who had been keen for a long time and had suitably safe and secure locations.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 171
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
Item 12 Item
AnnexA
Photo 4: Whanganui Quaker settlement resident Lyneke Onderwater at release site of tradescantia leaf beetle larva. (R.Sicely)
Various
10.2.5 Staff released broom gall mite across the region at 10 sites within the rail corridor. This is part of the joint programme with KiwiRail, which has been sponsoring broom gall mite releases and the Tutsan Action Group (TAG) for the last two years.
10.2.6 The well established green thistle beetle site in the Pohangina Valley was inspected in December. Numbers were low and populations scattered, making harvest unprofitable. We will look again when the insects are likely to be ready in early February. This is also a popular agent following recent publicity about its potential and a programme of extension run through AgResearch, Palmerston North.
10.2.7 Late last year we assisted a Landcare Research scientist to survey a 2004 release site of the old man’s beard sawfly which had long been presumed to have failed to establish. The survey was part of a national survey of historic release sites to relook at the establishment of this agent and whether we should try to once again bring it to New Zealand for another attempt to reduce old man’s beard. Nothing was found, which is what was expected. However, in early January we received exciting news from Landcare Research. The scientists were amazed to find four sawfly larvae and one adult at the Clover Rd West release site, Nelson, where they were released 13 years ago. The site had not been checked since 2006. This news means the sawflies have established after all, but are still incredibly rare. It is suspected that wasps are probably hammering them there, plus the site has been heavily modified with major efforts to restore it in natives. The next steps are to continue to make a concerted effort to check all the other sites that haven’t been destroyed, ideally in late February/early March. The sawfly is unlikely to be an effective agent if wasps are the problem. However, if they are, as we suspect, genetically
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 172
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
bottlenecked and we can collect sawflies from other sites, it would be worth mixing them together to create a new population and releasing them at a wasp-free site to see if that makes a difference.
10.2.8 Darwin’s barberry: Horizons made its first release of 200 Darwin’s barberry seed weevils at
Parkville Road, Eketahuna. The weevils are very small and may be hard to find in the future, but 12 Item this is a very exciting step for this intractable weed. Media release of the event: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/76287031/horizons-releases-chilean-weevils-to-
combat-weeds.
AnnexA
Photo 5: Sleeves tied onto Darwin’s barberry plants at Parkville road with seed weevils inside them (J.Keast).
Craig Davey ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – PLANTS
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 173
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
11 Non-rateable Land & Crown Agencies
11.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Item 12 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th Actual . MOU/Liaison progress 1 4 2 7 12 . 60%
11.2 Activity Report
We liaise with the following agencies: LINZ, DOC, KiwiRail, NZ Defence Force, NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), Palmerston North City Council and Whanganui, Ruapehu, Rangitikei, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua district councils. We also meet annually with neighbouring regional councils to discuss boundary pest control issues.
11.2.1 Work continued with multiple agencies in this period, with nothing specific to report..
Craig Davey
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – PLANTS
AnnexA
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 174
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
12 Surveillance
12.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Reporting Period YTD 12 Item Measure % . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th Actual . Survey and inspect all nurseries for National Pest Plant Accord (NPPA) . 0 . - . - . . . 0 . NA listed weeds . Report all discoveries and action . Reported below taken . Survey & record status of all known 26 - - . 26 NA and new Surveillance species sites . New sites 0 - - . 0 NA . Total sites 26 - - . 26 NA . Zero Density progress (cumulative 18 - - . 18 69% sites at Zero Density)
12.2 Activity Report
12.2.1 No new sites were discovered but one reported site of Chilean needle grass was inspected on Maunga Road, Tararua. It turned out to be a similar plant and problem grass called ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus).
12.2.2 Prior to Christmas we received many requests for advice and information on how to deal with field AnnexA horsetail.
12.2.3 The Rangitikei Horsetail Group has been similarly successful as the Tutsan Action Group in finding potential agents to potentially offer long term management and reduction of field horsetail. The group’s application for release of a weevil has been submitted to the EPA.
Craig Davey ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – PLANTS
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 175
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
13 Awareness & Promotion
13.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress
Item 12 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure . 1st . 2nd . 3rd . 4th . 5th Actual . Report on all awareness and promotional . 45 . 88 . 186 . . . 319 activity *1 . *1 AP/LTP targets
13.2 Activity Table
Activity What Field Horsetail Field Day, November 6 . Talks to groups Totara Reserve kids day Policy team day Gunnera watch; Manawatu Standard, November OMB article; Manawatu Standard, January
Darwin’s barberry weevil press release; Manawatu Standard, January . Media articles Check, clean, dry; Horowhenua Chronicle, January Pest plan; various media Weed killer risk low, says expert; Manawatu Standard, January
Old Man's Beard in Pongaroa; Bush Telegraph, January AnnexA
13.3 Activity report
Frontlines - November- January 2016 80 68 70
60 48 50 38 40 29 30
20
10 3 0 Production Zero-Density Freshwater Surveillance Non-Strategy
Graph 3: Pest plant enquiries - summary
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 176
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
13.3.1 The main topics of enquiry during this period were as follows:
PRODUCTION Enquiry/complaints about tutsan, gorse and blackberry
ZERO-DENSITY Old man’s beard sightings Item 12 Item FRESHWATER Rapid expansion of pond weeds due to temperature increases, mostly curled pondweed
SURVEILLANCE Staff fielded many enquiries about field horsetail, providing advice on how to manage sites.
NON-STRATEGY Privet and pink ragwort
Craig Davey ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – PLANTS
AnnexA
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 177
Environment Committee 09 March 2016
13.4 Biosecurity Activity (Plants) Summary
Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date . Work with NC partners and other stakeholders to: Item 12 Item . Nature Central 1. Form plan . Annual meeting held, maps produced, (NC) Wilding Conifer . 2. Activity planning and alignment with programmes achieved. Implementation Plan tracking sheet . 3. Annual meeting scheduled. . Waimarino TNP . Organise joint work . Programme underway. We have good Darwin’s barberry programme alongside DOC. cooperation and alignment with DOC. control programme . Yellow bristle . Decide on the best actions grass (YBG) Horizons can take to arrest the . Beginning to disseminate best practice intervention spread and impact of YBG on the information to road managers. investigation Region. . Rangitikei . Assist group financially and . Successful field day held with more than 60 Horsetail Group with actions as required. people attending at Te Hou farm. . Project is nearing completion and host . Tutsan Action . Assist group financially and testing of possible agents is underway in Group with actions as required. containment facility. Group is readying for EPA application to release agents. 1. Workable structure established for Horizons staff to implement . Horizons’ protocol for regional and national . Agent assessment 2. Tutsan assessment sites assessment protocol commitments has been project established. established.
AnnexA 3. Other plants planned and criteria established. .Relationship between parties maintained. . Desert Road . Annual meeting held in late September, .MOU completed Invasive Legume collaborative approach to weed infestation Control Group .Coordinated action in priority management occurring between parties. areas is undertaken against the target species. 1. Establish season plan . Programme plan submitted and funding . Check, Clean, Dry 2. Establish register of received from MPI and confirmation from DOC (CCD) advocacy relationships to be managed to for funding a Whanganui catchment focussed programme enable wide community uptake effort. of message.
Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 178