Policy and Planning Committee

Thursday 5 May 2016 10.30am Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford

Agenda for the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council to be held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 5 May 2016 commencing at 10.30am.

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

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

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

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

Apologies

Notification of Late Items

Item 1 Confirmation of Minutes – 17 March 2016 Page 1

Item 2 Sustainable Dairying Water Accord – Two years on Page 8

Item 3 Submission on Next steps for fresh water consultation Page 54 document

Item 4 LAWA River of the Month Page 67

Doc# 1672616-v1

Item 5 Comparison of national and overseas bathing water Page 69 quality criteria

Item 6 Potential benefits of introducing dung beetles to Taranaki Page 78

Item 7 State of the Environment Monitoring of Lake Rotorangi Page 84 water quality and biological programme Annual Report 2014-2015

Item 8 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance Page 91

Item 9 Draft submission on Review of the Oil Pollution Page 131 Levy 2015-2016

Item 10 Submission on the Review of King Edward Park Page 198

Item 11 Key Native Ecosystems programme update 2016 – update two Page 204

Item 12 General Business

1

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Confirmation of Minutes – 17 March 2016

Item: 1

Approved by: A D McLay, Director-Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1672626

Resolve That the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. takes as read and confirms the minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council held in the Taranaki Regional Council chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 17 March 2016 at 10.30am 2. notes the recommendations therein were adopted by the Taranaki Regional Council on 5 April 2016. Matters arising Appendices Document #1656315 – Minutes Policy and Planning Committee Thursday 17 March 2016

2

Minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee Meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council, held in the Taranaki Regional Council Chambers, 47 Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 17 March 2016 at 10.30 am.

Members Councillors N W Walker (Committee Chairperson) P D Horton M P Joyce C S Williamson

D L Lean (ex officio)

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

Attending Messrs B G Chamberlain (Chief Executive) A D McLay (Director-Resource Management) G K Bedford (Director-Environment Quality) M J Nield (Director-Corporate Services) G C Severinsen (Planning and Strategy Manager) C L Spurdle (Planning Manager) R Ritchie (Communications Manager) Mrs M Lachmann (Digital Media Co-ordinator) Mrs K van Gameren (Committee Administrator) Mrs F Hafiz (Scientific Officer) Mrs N West (Policy Analyst)

Mr J Clough (Wrightson Consulting)

One member of the media.

Apologies The apologies from Councillor B R Jeffares, Councillor D N MacLeod and Councillor R Jordan (New Plymouth District Council) were received and sustained.

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

1. Confirmation of Minutes – 4 February 2016

Resolved

THAT the Policy and Planning Committee of the Taranaki Regional Council

Doc# 1656315-v1 3

1. takes as read and confirms the minutes of the Policy and Planning Committee meeting of the Taranaki Regional Council held in the Taranaki Regional Council Chambers, Cloten Road, Stratford, on Thursday 4 February 2016 at 10.30 am

2. notes that the recommendations therein were adopted by the Taranaki Regional Council on 22 February 2016.

Williamson/Joyce

Matters Arising

There were no matters arising.

2. Survey of Rural Decision Makers 2015

2.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum advising the Committee of the release of the findings of a survey undertaken by Landcare Research of landowners and land managers nationwide. The survey provides an evidence base nationally, region by region, and by agricultural production sector, that can be used by policy agencies, regulators, and land managers to better understand the state of land management and what is influencing decision-making and land use changes across New Zealand’s rural sector.

2.2 There were positive perceptions of the Council and its environmental programmes shown by the survey results.

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives this memorandum noting the release by Landcare Research of summary results of the Survey of Rural Decision Makers 2015 2. notes the findings of the survey 3. notes that officers of the Council will seek further information from Landcare Research of relevance to the Taranaki region, and would further inform the Council as appropriate. Horton/Vickers

3. State of the Environment Monitoring Groundwater Levels 1989-2013

3.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum presenting to the Committee the latest results and findings of the State of the Environment programme implemented by the Council to monitor the levels of groundwater across the region.

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 17 March 2016

4

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of and trends in the quantity of the region’s groundwater resources 2. receives the report State of the Environment Monitoring Groundwater Levels 1989-2013 Technical Report 2014-126 3. notes the findings of the analysis of data on the levels of groundwater from the SEM groundwater monitoring programme 4. notes the findings of the trend analysis of data from the SEM groundwater monitoring programme 5. adopts the specific recommendations therein. McIntyre/Williamson

4. Regional freshwater ecological quality: 2014-2015 results from state of the environment monitoring

4.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum presenting an update to the Committee on the latest results and findings of the Council’s State of the Environment monitoring programme for freshwater ecosystem health (macroinvertebrate monitoring).

Recommended

THAT the Taranaki Regional Council

1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of and trends in regional in-stream macroinvertebrate community health data for Taranaki, for 2014-2015 and over the period 1995-2015

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

5. SEM periphyton monitoring programme reports 2010-2012 and 2012-2014

5.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum presenting to the Committee two reports on the quality of streams and rivers in the Taranaki region, as measured by assessing periphyton during the 2010-2012 and 2012- 2014 years (Freshwater Periphyton Monitoring Programme (Periphyton monitoring in relation to amenity values) State of Environment Monitoring Report 2010-2012 and Freshwater Periphyton Monitoring Programme (Periphyton monitoring in relation to amenity values) State of Environment Monitoring Report 2012-2014).

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 17 March 2016

5

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council

1. receives this memorandum on the results of the Council’s SEM programme monitoring periphyton, and the accompanying reports Freshwater Periphyton Monitoring Programme (Periphyton monitoring in relation to amenity values) State of Environment Monitoring Report 2010-2012 Technical Report 2015-105 and Freshwater Periphyton Monitoring Programme (Periphyton monitoring in relation to amenity values) State of Environment Monitoring Report 2012-2014 Technical Report 2015-99. 2. adopts the specific report recommendations contained therein. Williamson/Horton

6. Regional state of the environment monitoring for freshwater physiochemical quality: 2014-2015 results and long-term trends

6.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum providing an update to the Committee on the latest results of the Council’s State of the Environment long term monitoring programme for freshwater quality (physiochemical measures).

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council

1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of and trends in regional physicochemical water quality data for Taranaki, for 2014-2015 and over the periods 1995-2015 and 2008-2015, respectively, together with information on trends for the period and compliance with the NOF and regional guidelines

2. receives the report Freshwater Physicochemical Programme State of the Environment Monitoring Annual Report 2014-2015 Technical Report 2015-51

3. notes the findings of the trend analyses of data from the SEM physicochemical programme 4. notes the findings of the analysis of water quality state data from the SEM physicochemical programme 5. adopts the specific recommendations therein. Joyce/Williamson

7. State of the Environment Rocky Shore Monitoring Report 2008-2015

7.1 Mr G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality, spoke to the memorandum providing an update to the Committee on the latest results of the Council’s State of the Environment monitoring programme for rocky coastal environments.

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 17 March 2016

6

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council

1. receives the memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of and trends in regional rocky coastal ecological quality data for Taranaki, for 2008-2015

2. receives the report State of the Environment Rocky Shore Monitoring Report 2008-2015 Technical Report 2015-56

3. notes the findings of the trend analysis of data from the SEM coastal ecological programme 4. notes the findings of the analysis of state data from the SEM coastal ecological programme 5. adopts the specific report recommendations therein. Jeffares/Vickers

8. Submission on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill

8.1 Mr G C Severinsen, Policy and Strategy Manager, spoke to the memorandum introducing a submission made by the Council on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. The submission was sent by the due date of 14 March 2016.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum submission on Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, and 2. endorses the submission. Vickers/Nixon

9. Next steps for fresh water: Consultation document and Council submission

9.1 Mr G C Severinsen, Policy and Strategy Manager, spoke to the memorandum introducing to the Committee a consultation document released by the Ministry for the Environment on the next steps the Government proposes for freshwater management in New Zealand and to seek feedback from Members on possible points for inclusion in a submission that closes on 22 April 2016.

9.2 It was noted the submission should reflect Council’s position with regard to Iwi rights and interests in freshwater.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum Next steps for fresh water: consultation document

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 17 March 2016

7

2. notes that a submission on the document incorporating comments made by the Committee will be prepared. Lean/McIntyre

10. Key Native Ecosystems programme update 2016

10.1 Mr C L Spurdle, Planning Manager, spoke to the memorandum providing an update to the Committee on the Council’s identification of twelve new Key Native Ecosystems (KNE) sites.

10.2 At was noted there had been significant interest in QEII covenants in the region and there was insufficient funds to meet the demand. Consideration should be given to alternative survey techniques to reduce covenant costs.

Recommended That the Taranaki Regional Council 1. receives the memorandum and the inventory sheets for Tongaporutu QEII Covenants; Team Tong Tiger Territory; Rahui; Ancell Farms; Totara Mahanga; Berridge Twin Bush; Tongaporutu/ Hutiwai Upper Estuaries; Skiltons Bush; Tongaporutu Lower Estuary; Ingram’s QEII; King Edward Park & Carrington Walkway; and Tongaporutu Grazing Co Bush 2. notes that the aforementioned sites have indigenous biodiversity values of regional significance and should be identified as Key Native Ecosystems. Joyce/Nixon

11. General Business

There were no items of general business.

There being no further business, the Committee Chairperson Councillor N W Walker, declared the Policy and Planning Committee meeting closed at 12.15pm.

Confirmed

Committee Chairperson: ______N W Walker

Date: 5 May 2016

Policy and Planning Committee Meeting Thursday 17 March 2016

8

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Sustainable Dairying Water Accord – Two years on

Item: 2

Approved by: S H Hall, Director - Operations

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1662515

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce the second annual progress report on the Sustainable Dairying Water Accord.

Attached to this memorandum for Members’ information is the full report Two Years On.

Executive summary • The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord was developed by the dairy industry in June 2013 to replace the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord which expired at the end of 2012. • The Accord contains targets and commitments for the dairy industry in relation to riparian management, nutrient management, effluent management, water use management and farm conversions, to improve the quality of fresh water in environments affected by dairying. Approximately 11,500 dairy farms are covered by the Accord. Some 15 regional councils and unitary authorities have signed up as ‘Friends of the Accord’. • Annual monitoring of progress in implementing the Accord is undertaken. This monitoring is independently audited on. The attached report Two Years On, which was released on Wednesday 27 April 2016, is the latest report on how the dairy sector is tracking against its commitments in the Accord. • The report highlights that, even during tough times, the dairy sector is making good progress on environmental actions such as stock exclusion from waterways, effluent and riparian management and the accreditation of expert advisors on nutrient management. • In relation to riparian management, the report notes that the Taranaki region sits outside of the riparian management commitments of the Accord due to an existing agreement that expired on 31 October 2015. The report does however note that 80% of streambanks are fenced and 65% of streambanks are vegetated in Taranaki.

9

• In relation to nutrient management, the report notes that Taranaki has the second highest average nitrogen leaching loss with an average N-loss of 54 kg/N/ha/yr. However, these figures are derived from computer modelling using the OVERSEER Nutrient Budget model while our most recent state of the environment monitoring results show no increase in the total amount of nitrogen leaching to Taranaki’s waterways and that against all meaningful comparators the region has very good water quality. • Finally, the report highlights challenges in integrating councils’ wetland information with farm level information. The report also noted difficulties in obtaining relevant auditable information from some Supporting Partners of the Accord and recommends reviewing/reaffirming third party assessment requirements for all industry role players.

Recommendation That the Taranaki Regional Council:

1. receives the memorandum Sustainable Dairying – Water Accord: Two Years On.

Background The Sustainable Dairying Water Accord (the Accord) was developed under the oversight of the Dairy Environment Leadership Group (DELG), a coalition of farmers, dairy companies, central government agencies, regional councils and the Federation of Maori Authorities. Mr B Chamberlain sits on DELG representing regional councils. It replaces the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord set up in 2003 and which expired at the end of 2012.

The Accord is an expression of collective responsibility across the dairy sector (and a wider range of stakeholders) to improve the quality of fresh water in environments affected by dairying. Its stated purpose is to “…enhance the overall performance of dairy farming as it affects freshwater by: • committing to good management practices expected of all dairy farmers in New Zealand • recording pledges by the dairy sector, with the support of others, to assist and encourage dairy farmers to adopt those good management practices and to monitor and report progress.”

Through the Accord the dairy industry is seeking to promote a common understanding of issues and challenges to pursue a shared vision for an industry-led approach to the management of risks to waterways associated with dairying. The Accord outlines commitments and targets in five key areas: • riparian management • nutrient management • effluent management • water use management • conversions.

The Accord was officially launched at Parliament on 9 July 2013. It is important for Members to note that the Accord is an industry-led response. It has two tiers of ‘accountable’ and ‘supporting partnership’ partnerships between a number of dairy industry bodies and agri- business but it also lists 15 regional and unitary councils (including this Council) as ‘Friends of the Accord’. Approximately 11,500 farms are covered by the Accord.

10

Each year, as part of the implementation of the Accord, DELG commissions an independent audit of the Accord data and prepares a report.

The second annual progress report now before the Committee, sets out what the Accord has achieved in its two years of operation, and what remains to be done.

The report - Two Years On The report Two Years On was officially released on Wednesday 27 April 2016. It is the latest annual report on how the dairy sector is tracking against its commitments in the Accord.

The report highlights that even during tough economic times, the dairy sector is making real and meaningful progress to achieve the targets set out in the Accord.

The report notes that that more than $1 billion has been spent by the dairy sector over the past five years in environmental actions. Some of the key achievements highlighted in the report include: • dairy companies report that 25,656 kilometres or 96% of Accord waterways have been excluded from stock. In the auditor’s statement it is noted that “…waterway stock exclusion on a dairy farm is now regarded as a given and a non-negotiable industry requirement” • more than 99% of 42,773 regular stock crossings on dairy farms are bridged or culverted to protect local water quality • in relation to the $1 billion spent by farmers on environmental initiatives over the last five years, the majority of investments (70%) have been on effluent system upgrades • national levels of significant non compliance for dairy effluent system discharges have dropped to their lowest level on record – 5.8% (down from 7% in 2013/2014 ) • regionally-tailored riparian management advice for farmers • seventy-five percent of dairy farmers are now getting nitrogen information to help them farm responsibility – with 8,578 nutrient budgets processed last year (compared with 56% in 2013/2014) • ensuring farmers have accredited experts they can turn to for nutrient management advice (there are now 100 certified nutrient management supervisors).

Notwithstanding the good progress above, the report also highlights two major challenges going forward relating to data collection. These are: • collecting information on significant wetlands: In view of wetlands being found to have adequate stock exclusion (as part of the waterway stock exclusion objective), the Auditor recommends re-evaluating the need to link on-farm wetland data to Council identified wetlands. So far this has proven to be challenging, time consuming and creates levels of ambiguity while not adding much more value in terms of wetland stock exclusion practices. • collecting nutrient management data and performance benchmarking: The collection of nutrient management data from individual farms and how to benchmark and deliver useful information back to farmers is one area where the report identifies much more work needs to be done. More work is also required to align reporting systems at the dairy company level so that it can provide robust reporting for the industry on the Accord.

11

Given the difficulties in obtaining relevant auditable information from some Supporting Partners of the Accord and mixed levels of engagement and understanding of the Accord, the Auditors also recommended, amongst other things, reviewing/reaffirming third party assessment requirements for all industry role players.

Discussion In relation to riparian management, the report notes that the Taranaki region sits outside of the riparian management commitments of the Accord due to an existing agreement that expired on 31 October 2015. The report does however note that 80% of streambanks are fenced and 65% of streambanks are vegetated in Taranaki.

The Council will continue to implement its current voluntary riparian management programme until July 2020 when the Council expects to have a regulatory programme in place as part of the Freshwater Plan review. In the meantime Council is in discussions with Fonterra to get agreement on aligning industry fencing requirements with our expectations that riparian margins be fenced and planted. Discussion is also occurring on Fonterra’s use of Council riparian data to avoid expensive duplication and inefficiency.

In the area of nutrient management (page 20 of the full report) a table presents regional average nitrogen leaching loss estimates across 13 regions for the 2014/2015 season. The Taranaki region comes in as the second highest region in the country (behind Tasman) with an average N-loss of 54 kg/N/ha/yr, and the highest of all four of the major dairy regions.

It is important for Members to note that these figures are derived from computer modelling using the OVERSEER Nutrient Budget model. Members have previously been briefed on the strengths and limitations of OVERSEER in the Taranaki context. There are a number of limitations with the use of the model including that it has only been validated to a rainfall of 1200 mm per year and thus its application beyond the southern coastal strip of Taranaki’s ring plain is not established.

Notwithstanding the report’s modelling findings, our most recent state of the environment report on our physicochemical state of the environment monitoring programme shows for the first time, no increase in the total amount of nitrogen leaching to Taranaki’s waterways and that against all meaningful comparators the region has very good water quality. In addition, the most recent state of the environment monitoring results for nitrates in shallow groundwater showed nitrate concentrations at 73% of sites having remained stable over a ten-year period (2002 – 2012), and a clear pattern of fewer sites having their peak nitrate concentrations recorded during more recent surveys. Taranaki survey results were found to compare favourably with recent groundwater surveys carried out in other intensive dairy farming areas of New Zealand.

In the 2014/2015 season, the report notes the lowest level of significant non-compliance on record – 5.8% (down from 7% the previous year). However, rates varied widely between regions. Greater Wellington, Hawkes Bay, Horizons and Tasman (0%) had the lowest non- compliance rates while Northland (21%) and Auckland (19%) had the highest non- compliance rates. Taranaki’s rate of significant non-compliance was 1.5%.

There has been some criticism that these figures under-report the real situation regarding compliance. Some councils such as Environment Waikato do not undertake annual monitoring and give prior notice of any impending inspections. Other councils such as

12

Horizons undertake annual inspections but also give prior notice of any inspections which allows the farmer to address any non compliance issues. At the other end of the spectrum are Northland Regional Council and this Council which monitor all their consent holders each year and do not forewarn farmers of impending inspections. The different compliance monitoring systems and practices adopted by some councils therefore makes it hard to undertake a meaningful comparison.

Notwithstanding the above, it is important for Members to note that the report accurately presents the situation in Taranaki. The Council has from the 1980s had a compliance monitoring regime in place that includes annual inspections and re-inspections (where there have been compliance issues identified). It has a well-established record for taking a hard line with enforcement action. As a minimum, the Council issues an abatement notice for any instance of non-compliance. In the 2014/2015 annual agricultural monitoring programme the Council inspected all 1,773 dairy farm effluent treatment systems in the region. During this time, Council officers served 123 abatement notices and 27 infringement notices for any instance on non-compliance with consent conditions – whether they be ‘significant non- compliance’ or technical breaches which had minor or no environmental effect.

Given the variation around the country in the ‘significant non-compliance’ rate, the dairy industry has implemented effluent system assessments and the Warrant of Fitness, to complement the annual monitoring by councils.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

Appendices Document number 1672885: Sustainable Dairying Water Accord –Two Years On.

13

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING – TWO YEARS ON... What have we achieved? WATER What do we need to keep working on? ACCORD A commitment to New Zealand by the dairy sector 14

Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord

The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord (the Accord) has been developed under the oversight of the Dairy Environment Leadership Group (DELG). DELG includes representatives from farmers, dairy companies, central government, regional councils and the Federation of Māori Authorities.

Accountable Partners

In accordance with this Accord the following parties have specific responsibilities and are accountable for delivering the commitments and monitoring and reporting as specified. They undertake to carry out those responsibilities in good faith and to the best of their abilities.

Kingi Smiler Michael Spaans John Wilson Laurie Margrain Chairman Chair Chairman Chairman

Graeme Milne Stephen Allen Malcolm Bailey Roger Usmar Chairman Chairman Chairman General Manager

Supporting Partners

Supporting Partners make commitments to the outcomes of this Accord in support of the Accountable Partners.

Friends of the Accord Friends of the Accord are supportive of the purpose of this Accord and commit to contribute to its success in the spirit of collaboration. • Westland Milk Products • Regional/Unitary Councils: Northland Regional Council; Auckland Council; Waikato Regional Council; Bay of Plenty Regional Council; Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; Gisborne District Council; Taranaki Regional Council; Horizons Regional Council; Greater Wellington Regional Council; Environment Canterbury; West Coast Regional Council; Marlborough District Council; Tasman District Council; Otago Regional Council; Environment Southland • The Federation of Māori Authorities • Ministry for Primary Industries • Ministry for the Environment

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 1 15

Contents

Foreword 4

Introduction 6

Summary/Highlights 8

Two years on 11

Riparian Management 10

Nutrient Management 18

Effluent Management 24

Water Use Management 30

Conversions 34

Appendix 36

Auditor’s Statement 40

The Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ) is the umbrella body of companies processing milk in New Zealand. www.dcanz.com

DairyNZ is the industry organisation representing New Zealand’s dairy farmers, funded by farmers through a levy on milksolids. www.dairynz.co.nz or www.dairyatwork.co.nz

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 3 16

Foreword

This is the second annual progress report for the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord. We have made some real and meaningful progress during the 2014/15 dairy season.

4 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 17

We are very pleased to present the second annual progress report for the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord. Turning commitment into action is always a challenge, but real and meaningful progress has been made during this second dairy Accord season.

We continue to recognise and applaud the efforts of farmers, dairy companies, DairyNZ and our Supporting Partners and Friends for their efforts to date on this massive undertaking, and urge everyone to continue on the path of continual improvement.

It has been an especially challenging financial time for dairy farmers across the country in this second Accord reporting year but progress on the Accord commitments has been significant.

We continue to work closely with regional councils around the country to assist them with implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (2014). This involves being part of community collaborative processes that are setting water quality and quantity limits for different waterways throughout New Zealand. We are committed as an industry to farming within environmental limits to maintain and enhance the land and resources that our industry relies upon.

Further information on all our industry initiatives can be found at www.dairyatwork.co.nz.

Michael Spaans Malcolm Bailey Chair Chairman DairyNZ Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand

Making dairy farming work for everyone

Competitive Responsible global and local today and tomorrow

Farm Profit Environmental Stewardship Increase on-farm profit and resilience Proactive environmental stewardship and through greater efficiency wise use of natural resources

Research and Development Animal Welfare Research and develop innovative Farm to high standards of animal health, technologies and solutions to meet the welfare and well-being future needs of dairy farms

Talented People Work Environment Attract, develop and retain highly skilled Provide a world-class work environment and motivated people throughout the on-farm industry

Biosecurity and Product Integrity Local Communities Enhance the assurance levels of New Enhance the communities we live in Zealand’s biosecurity and product integrity

Industry Information Systems National Prosperity Create and maintain industry-wide Grow dairying’s contribution to the systems and structures to serve the needs prosperity and well-being of New Zealand of dairy farmers

Sustainable Dairy Farming

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 5 18

The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord

The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord was launched in July 2013.

This second annual progress report aims to set out what the Accord has achieved in its second year of operation for the dairy season June 2014 to May 2015.

6 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 19

This Accord involves a large number of industry players as well as New Zealand’s dairy companies. It has commitments and targets for five key areas • Riparian management

• Nutrient management

• Effluent management

• Water use management

• Conversions

The purpose of the Accord is to enhance the overall performance of dairy farming as it affects freshwater by: • Committing to good management practices expected of all dairy farmers in New Zealand

• Recording pledges by the dairy sector, with the support of others, to assist and encourage dairy farmers to adopt those good management practices and to monitor and report progress

Collating the Accord report

The total number of farms covered by the Accord is approximately 11,500.

This includes farms supplying the dairy companies Fonterra, Miraka, Open Country, Synlait and Tatua, but excludes farms supplying other dairy companies.

Oceania has joined the Accord as a full accord partner and will be reporting through in the next season but already has all the Accord initiatives underway.

Westland Milk Products continues as a Friend of the Accord.

A number of the Accord commitments are defined in terms of percentage of farms achieving a certain standard. In these cases, we have recorded the number of farms reported by each dairy company as meeting the standard and have then divided that total by 11,500 to estimate overall national achievements.

Accountable and Supporting Partners have developed and are implementing diverse programmes to achieve environmental commitments outlined in the Accord. We have summarised these where relevant in the different reporting areas.

Verification of data and figures

An independent audit has been undertaken on the data used in the preparation of this report ( see page 40 for Auditor’s Statement).

Two recommendations from the independent audit report for 2013/14 have been implemented.

1. The Water Accord was reviewed in 2014/15 and minor changes were made. A revised version was published in December 2015. A full review of the Water Accord will take place in 2016/17.

2. A thorough review of the audit standards for the Water Accord was carried out in 2014/15. This resulted in standard template forms that were provided to the dairy companies to ensure consistent and aligned reporting.

How does the audit verify information in this report?

As part of the audit process, the auditors spend eight days auditing DairyNZ and the Water Accord dairy companies (to verify the information coming from the dairy company to DairyNZ for collation in this report). The auditors also spend 40 days going onto 77 farms randomly selected from DairyNZ’s database to verify the information coming from the farmer to the dairy company.

To read the independent audit report, please go to www.dairyatwork.co.nz or www.dairynz.co.nz/wateraccord

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 7 20

Summary and highlights TWO YEARS ON WHAT WE’VE ACHIEVED SO FAR…

of the waterways1 on New Zealand 96% dairy farms are now excluded2 from MORE THAN 99% dairy cattle. of 42,773 regular stock crossing points3 on This represents 25,656 kilometres of fenced-off and dairy farms now have bridges or culverts to measured waterways. protect local water quality.

8,598 nutrient budgets have been

processed in 2014/15

to give useful nitrogen leaching Over one billion dollars has been spent information back to farmers. This by farmers on environmental initiatives represents 75% of the industry. over the last five years, with the majority of investments (70%) on effluent system upgrades.

Significant non-compliance for dairy The Primary ITO (Industry Training effluent discharges has dropped to its Organisation) lowest on record has doubled the number of farm staff annually attending 5.8%. effluent training to 508.

THERE ARE Nine regionally-tailored planting guidelines for NOW 100 waterways have been certified Nutrient produced Management for farmers with information on recommended set-back distances, Advisors planting density and appropriate operating across the country. plant species.

8 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 21

We are… We made great very close to 100% on a number of targets such as stock exclusion from waterways and strides towards… providing bridges or culverts for stock crossings. our target of 100% of dairy farms providing quality nutrient management data. It’s Dairy companies have…. currently sitting at 75%, up from 56% last year. identified 175 new dairy farm conversions since 2013. 29% measured as complying with standard by May 2015, 81% by March 2016.

THE TOUGHEST CHALLENGES WE’VE MADE THE MOST ARE STILL… PROGRESS ON….

Collecting nutrient Fencing off waterways and drains management data and and excluding them from dairy performance benchmarking cattle The collection of nutrient management information is still one of our biggest challenges. That’s Bridging or culverting regular stock because of the level of information required and crossing points the individual processing through the computer modelling tool OVERSEER to produce a reliable Nitrogen (N) loss estimate for each farm. Engaging farmers and their We are driving continual improvements in the quality advisors in environmental training, of data from the farmer and also of information assessment and actions going back to farmers. We are keeping the focus on nutrient management data collection at the farm level and how to benchmark and deliver quality and Ensuring farmers have more useful information back to farmers. certified experts they can turn to for nutrient management advice

Collecting information on Regional waterway planting significant wetlands in management advice tailored to regional council boundaries farmers Collecting this information is proving problematic with all councils having different definitions and identification processes. More work is planned in this area including ongoing engagement with regional councils.

1The Accord defines a waterway as a lake, spring, river or stream that permanently contains water and any significant wetland. Waterways and drains greater than one metre in width and deeper than 30cm are included in the definition. Stock exclusion from streams smaller than that definition may be negotiated as part of regional programmes of action.

2The Accord defines stock exclusion from waterways as “effectively barred from access to water and to the banks of a waterway either through a natural barrier (such as a cliff) or a permanent fence, except for any regular stream crossing point.”

3The Accord defines a regular stock crossing point as “a point on a waterway or drain where dairy cattle cross to access the milking shed, then return following milking, more than once per month.“ In these cases they must be bridged or culverted.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 9 22

10 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 23

Two Years On… How are we doing?

In the following sections, we report back on the key commitments of the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord and what has been achieved in its first two years of operation.

We have made good progress from last year on verifying our data and systems and achieving key targets. We have also worked on getting better and more consistent data collection/aggregation across all dairy companies.

A new edition of the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord was published in December 2015 with minor updates and revisions as part of a reprint of the original version. Minor changes were made to ensure consistent annual reporting of obligations and to include Oceania Dairy as a new Accountable Partner to the Accord. Oceania Dairy is owned by the Chinese dairy giant Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group (Yili). It is based at Glenavy in Canterbury.

Looking ahead – first review

In 2016/17 we will begin a review of the Accord, to meet our commitment to complete a first review before 1 June 2017. As well as looking at progress towards targets and commitments, the review will also consider the contribution all the parties involved have made to the purpose, vision and approach section of the Accord.

You can view the updated version of the full Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord at www.dairynz.co.nz/ wateraccord or www.dairyatwork.co.nz key to target status symbols

NOT YET ACHIEVED IN PROGRESS ACHIEVED

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 11 24

Two years on – quick summary

TARGET STATUS

RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT

90% stock exclusion of the length of waterways present on ON TRACK dairy farms by 31 May 2014; 100% by 30 May 2017 (96% in 2014/15)

IN PROGRESS AND ON 100% of regular stock crossing points are either bridged or TRACK (99% crossings culverted by 31 May 2018 with bridges/culverts by 2014/15)

NOT YET ACHIEVED; IN 100% stock exclusion of all wetlands identified by a regional PROGRESS (Still an area council as at 31 May 2012 by 31 May 2014 of on-going engagement with regional councils)

50% of dairy farms with waterways will have a riparian IN PROGRESS management plan by 31 May 2016

All of these farms will have completed half of their riparian IN PROGRESS AND ON plan commitments by 31 May 2020; full implementation by TRACK 31 May 2030

Riparian guidelines completed for nine regions by 31 May ACHIEVED 2015

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

NOT YET FULLY ACHIEVED; STILL IN Nutrient management data collected from 85% of dairy PROGRESS farms by 31 May 2014; 100% by 31 May, 2015 (75% achieved by 2014/15)

NOT YET FULLY Nitrogen loss and Nitrogen conversion efficiency ACHIEVED; STILL IN performance information reported back to 85% of dairy PROGRESS farms by 30 November 2014; 100% by 30 November 2015 (75% achieved by 2014/15)

50% of Fertiliser Association of New Zealand member company nutrient management advisers are certified by 31 ACHIEVED May 2014

12 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 25

TARGET STATUS

EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT

100% of farms are being assessed by 31 May 2014 ACHIEVED

A farm dairy effluent Warrant of Fitness scheme available as ACHIEVED a tool for farmers by 31 May 2014

WATER USE MANAGEMENT

IN PROGRESS AND ON 85% of all dairy farms to install water meters by 2020 TRACK (30% farms with water meters by 2014/15)

CONVERSIONS

IN PROGRESS (29% measured as complying All new dairy farm conversions comply with environmental with standard by May standards before milk supply commences 2015; 81% by March 2016)

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 13 26

Riparian Management

EXPECTATIONS: • Dairy farms will exclude dairy cattle from significant waterways and significant wetlands

• Riparian planting will occur where it would provide a water quality benefit

• The crossing of waterways by dairy cows will not result in degradation of those waterways

14 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 27

STOCK EXCLUSION & CROSSINGS

Dairy companies have reported 95.6% stock exclusion of Accord waterways for the 2014/15 season with 98.3% of all farms verified. 26,700 km of measured Accord waterways with 25,657 km stock excluded.

The Taranaki region (~1700 farms) sits outside the Riparian Management commitments of the Accord due to an existing agreement between Fonterra, Taranaki Regional Council and central government that expired in 2015. The Taranaki Regional Council reports 80% of stream banks are fenced and 65% of streambanks are vegetated (http://www.trc.govt.nz/healthy-report-for-region-s-rivers/).

TARGET 90% stock exclusion of the length of ON TRACK waterways present on dairy farms by 31 (96% in 2014/15) May 2014; 100% by 30 May 2017

Just over 2% of measured Accord waterway length on farm is subject to stock exclusion dispensations. Many of these are short-term extensions to allow farmers time to replace temporary fences with permanent ones, or associated with areas where frequent natural flooding precludes the use of permanent fences.

Dairy companies have identified 42,773 stock crossings on dairy farms, which is an increase of 7,000 identified crossings from last year. 98.3% of farms were assessed, and greater than 99% of regular crossing points identified have bridges or culverts as at 31 May 2015.

IN PROGRESS TARGET AND ON TRACK 100% of regular stock crossing points (99% crossings are either bridged or culverted by 31 with bridges/ culverts by May 2018 2014/15)

As reported by dairy companies, dispensations for stock crossings have been granted in a very small number of situations (less than 0.1%).

SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS

Work between the dairy industry and regional councils has improved the identification of significant wetlands in some regions (i.e. defined as those identified in an operative regional policy statement or plan).

Only some regions have significant wetlands scheduled in operative regional plans or regional policy statements since 31 May 2012. Six regional councils have significant wetlands scheduled with three of these having available Geographic Information Systems location data for stock exclusion to be assessed against. Due to information gaps, not all significant wetlands on dairy farms were assessed. However 100% of the farms that were assessed had stock exclusion. Work continues between the dairy industry and regional councils to improve the identification of significant wetlands in some regions in order to progress this target at a national scale.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 15 28

The dairy industry is currently considering a revised definition of a wetland to more fairly reflect progress on this target of protecting wetlands. One idea is to verify what is fenced or not during the usual inspection/verification process on a farm and include waterways on that record.

NOT YET TARGET ACHIEVED; STILL 100% stock exclusion of all wetlands IN PROGRESS (Still identified by a regional council as at 31 an area of on- going engagement May 2012 by 31 May 2014 with regional councils)

RIPARIAN PLANTING

Progress is being made in implementing riparian management plans to enhance water quality on farms. DairyNZ has produced an online tool to assist farmers and rural professionals to develop riparian management plans.

Dairy farmers have worked with regional councils to implement riparian planting. Taranaki Regional Council has prepared riparian management plans for 99.8% of dairy farms in Taranaki. These plans encapsulate over 14,000 kilometres of ground-truthed streambank which includes streams smaller than 1m wide and less than 30cm deep. In addition to the existing fencing and vegetation present, 5,483 kilometres has been recommended for new planting and 6,369 kilometres for new fencing. Taranaki farmers have planted and fenced 2,138 kilometres and 4,084 kilometres of streambank respectively with over 3.9 million native plants through the council’s native plant scheme. 83% of streambanks are now fenced and 64% vegetated where planting is recommended.

TARGET 50% of dairy farms with waterways will IN PROGRESS have a riparian management plan by 31 May 2016*

*This target date is unlikely to be met as the dairy industry has concentrated recent efforts on developing the GIS software mapping programmes to ensure that a nationally consistent and efficient process can be implemented through the dairy companies.

TARGET All of these farms will have completed IN PROGRESS half of their riparian plan commitments AND ON TRACK by 31 May 2020; full implementation by 31 May 2030

16 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 29

Getting riparian planting right in the Bay of Plenty

Your step-by-step guide for successful riparian planting

DairyNZ, in partnership with regional councils, has produced nine regionally- tailored riparian guidelines for Waikato, Southland, Otago, Wellington, Northland, Westland, Canterbury, Bay of Plenty and Manawatu-Wanganui regions. The

Protecting our valuable water resource is important for dairying in New Zealand. It also benefits the community who use water for drinking and economic, recreational, aesthetic, ecological and cultural activities. guidelines include information on recommended set-back distances, planting Riparian zones can be used to maintain and improve water quality. Once fenced and planted, they filter nutrients, sediment and bacteria that leave the land as runoff. Healthy riparian zones will improve the health of your waterway.

This practical ‘how to’ guide for riparian management covers planting and maintaining riparian zones for a sustainable and profitable dairy farm. It includes advice from industry and regional council experts.

What are riparian zones? density and appropriate plant species for specific objectives. The guides are Riparian zones are the strips of land beside drains, streams, rivers and lakes. They include areas on-farm where the soils are wettest, such as wetlands, springs, seeps and gullies. available from: dairynz.co.nz/environment/waterways/

TARGET Riparian guidelines completed for nine ACHIEVED regions by 31 May 2015

CASE STUDY

Windy challenge in the Ruahines

Brian and Alison Baxter have a windswept dairy farm near the base of the Ruahines. They milk 320 cows on 130 hectares. The creeks which run through their farm are fed by springs with very high water quality. The Baxters have been planting for four years and have put in 2500 plants.

The Baxters have planted hardy species to survive blustery conditions. Alison is the designer, laying out where the plants should go; the boys follow after her, digging and planting them. They plant flax, toetoe, cabbage trees and twiggy tree daisy.

CASE STUDY

Planting for bees in Kerikeri

Ann and Stephen Kearney milk 360 cows near Kerikeri. To improve water quality, they began planting manageable sections along the 5.5 kilometres of their farm waterways in 2004. The farm is located near the Puketi Forest and its streams feed the Kerikeri River. Ann and Stephen began fencing their riparian zones in the 1990s after helping students from Okaihau College investigate the effects of stock access on water.

Ann likes to plant trees for bees, such as manuka and kanuka. Bees help pollinate their clover which in turn increases soil fertility. Puriri and miro have also been planted to feed kereru.

For more information visit www.dairynz.co.nz/waterways

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 17 30

Nutrient Management

EXPECTATIONS: • Dairy farmers will manage Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorus (P) loss from dairy farming systems, acknowledge the need to manage within nutrient loss limits and pursue continuous improvement in nutrient use efficiency

18 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 31

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT DATA COLLECTION

Every dairy company has developed programmes to collect nutrient management data from their dairy farmers and model these using agreed protocols (OVERSEER Best Practice Data Input Standards). Data collection and verification systems for the 2014/15 season have improved considerably in this last season with all Accord dairy companies reporting nitrogen information from their suppliers.

Several companies have included provision of nutrient management data in their conditions of supply but not all farmers were able to provide the required data within the requested timeframes.

During the 2014/15 season, 8,598 nutrient budgets were processed and nitrogen information provided back to farmers. This represents 75% of the industry and is a significant gain from the 56% achieved for year one Accord reporting.

Collection and reporting on nutrient management information is one of the most challenging targets to meet in the Accord. The industry is committed to monitoring and reporting nutrient management performance on-farm and driving continual improvements in the quality of data from the farmer and also of information going back to farmers.

TARGET NOT YET FULLY ACHIEVED; STILL Nutrient management data collected IN PROGRESS from 85% of dairy farms by 31 May (75% achieved by 2014; 100% by 31 May, 2015 2014/15)

TARGET NOT YET FULLY Nitrogen loss and Nitrogen conversion ACHIEVED; STILL efficiency performance information reported IN PROGRESS (75% achieved back to 85% of dairy farms by 30 November by 2014/15) 2014; 100% by 30 November 2015*

*85 farms were reported back in February 2016.

AVERAGE NITROGEN-LOSS BY REGION

Modelling of collected farm information in OVERSEER® was undertaken to provide feedback to farmers on their performance relative to appropriate peer groups. Over time, the dairy industry will generate a comprehensive and robust dataset on N-loss and nitrogen use efficiency that will be of national significance in managing natural resources.

The OVERSEER® Nutrient Budget model is an agricultural management tool which assists farmers and their advisers to examine nutrient use and movements within a farm to optimise production and environmental outcomes. The computer model calculates and estimates the nutrient flows in a productive farming system and identifies risk for environmental impacts through nutrient loss, including run-off and leaching, and greenhouse gas emissions. For more information on OVERSEER® see www.overseer.org.nz.

The national average N loss, based on 2014/15 data in Table 1, was 39 kg N/ha/yr. With two years of Accord data we are also reporting the rolling average for the two Accord seasons which is 37 kg N/ha/yr.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 19 32

Table 1. Regional average N leaching loss (kg N/ha/yr) and sample size across 13 regions (based on 2014/15 season data).

Rolling average Average N-loss Sample size (2013/14 and 2014/15 (kg N/ha/yr) (number of farms) season data) Northland 22 628 23 Auckland 20 206 22 Waikato 35 2940 34 Bay of Plenty 43 513 40 Gisborne/Hawkes Bay 34 83 41 Taranaki 54 1195 51 Manawatu 29 640 28 Wellington 32 141 32 Tasman 72 94 68 Nelson/Marlborough 42 45 40 Canterbury 52 831 43 Otago 36 272 31 Southland 36 575 38

*The Westland region had only two farms reported this season so we have not reported the average N loss to protect the anonymity of the farmers’ information and because it is a very low sample size.

*Some of these regions included a few 2013/14 nutrient budgets but the analysis did not change the aggregated regional N loss numbers.

Variance between regions

The observed variance in N-loss between regions is a function of many factors including soil type, drainage characteristics (including rainfall and/or irrigation) and farming practices for that season.

It is also worth noting that there was a major OVERSEER upgrade during this last season so all 14/15 season data was processed through this new version of OVERSEER. In particular there were changes to the OVERSEER irrigation module which is why both Canterbury and Otago N loss number increased (both regions have farms which use fresh water irrigation for pasture management).

As a predictive model, OVERSEER outputs are sensitive to variation in input data and analysis protocols. It would be inappropriate to compare these numbers with other values generated for different purposes, as data input and analysis protocols may differ.

MANAGING PHOSPHORUS LOSS RISK

Stock exclusion from waterways, ensuring crossings are bridged/culverted, effective riparian management, and good practice effluent management are all important in mitigating phosphorus (P) loss risks on farm. These areas are all covered under separate Accord commitments. Other farm practices that can influence P loss risk include management of tracks and races and wintering practices (including cropping).

DairyNZ is investing in several research programmes that seek to improve environmental performance during the critical winter period such as the Southern Wintering Programme and Good Management Plans (GMPs) delivered through the Sustainable Milk Plan programme.

20 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 33

Reducing nitrogen loss “Reducing nitrogen loss: A guide to good management practices” provides farmers A guide to good management practices with guidance on evaluating if the farm system is performing well. It assesses key factors influencing nitrogen loss and describes the likely effects on the farm system if changes are made. It can be found on the DairyNZ website www.dairynz.co.nz.

Reducing nitrogen loss — A guide to good management practices | 1

CASE STUDY

New schemes showcase ways to combat nutrient loss

Waituna nitrate catcher trials

Location: Waituna Lagoon catchment, Southland

Scheme type: Nitrate catcher and phosphate filter

The nitrate catcher system treats the nitrate by allowing the tile drain water (an important feature of Waituna’s farming landscape) to pass through a wood chip filter where natural bacteria “denitrify” the nitrate to form nitrogen gas, before the water flows from the system to the surface drain. Further treatment of phosphate nutrients will be tested through the installation of a filter containing modified zeolite, a material which readily absorbs phosphate.

For more information visit www.dairynz.co.nz/waituna

Waikato Wetlands Showcase

Location: Lichfield – South Waikato

Scheme type: Restored and constructed wetland

Well-constructed wetlands can be highly effective as a means of reducing nitrogen losses, removing 75 percent of nitrate runoff through bacterial activity and plant uptake. Wetlands can also trap sediment and sediment-bound phosphorus and lower faecal bacteria levels, improving the ecological state of the waterways receiving runoff.

While the science behind wetlands is well understood, the recipe to restore and develop them on individual farms in cost-effective ways is not well tested.

Over the next two years this project will showcase the journey of a 1.1 hectare Waikato dairy farm wetland project (0.6 hectare constructed and 0.5 hectare restored area) and build practical advice around design, construction and operation along the way.

To follow its progress visit www.dairynz.co.nz/wetland- showcase

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 21 34

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ADVISER CERTIFICATION

The nutrient management advisor certification hit a major milestone in the 2014/15 year with a total of 100 rural professionals now certified (www.nmacertification.org.nz) with significant support from supporting partners Fertiliser Association of New Zealand, Ballance and Ravensdown.

TARGET 50% of Fertiliser Association of New Zealand member company nutrient ACHIEVED management advisers are certified by 31 May 2014

Ballance work with Fonterra, Open Country, Tatua, Miraka and Synlait to provide nutrient budgeting services to enable them to fulfil their requirements under the Water Accord. They work closely with each of those dairy companies in order to gain alignment and to ensure they are able to meet the required timescales and levels of service provision.

Where requested by dairy companies, Ravensdown has completed production season end nutrient budgets to determine the N leaching for a farm. This allows for aggregate analysis and trend analysis over time.

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT TRAINING

Massey University’s Fertiliser and Lime Research Centre runs two Sustainable Nutrient Management (SNM) courses with over 300 rural professionals attending in this last 2014/15 season (221 for the intermediate and 92 for the advanced). The Intermediate SNM course provides participants with a working knowledge of the assessment of nutrient requirements of a range of agricultural systems, including a consideration of best practices for environmental protection. The advanced SNM course provides an advanced knowledge of nutrient cycling and loss pathways in New Zealand‘s farming systems, allowing people to develop solutions for systems that have unacceptable nutrient loss to the environment.

FARMER EVENTS AND TRAINING

During the 14/15 season the dairy industry (along with industry partners) was involved in farmer events across the country where nutrient management was a key topic. Farmers were keen to engage and learn. Attendees totalled 3,220 farmers and 1,574 rural professionals. This is evidence that there is significant interest from farmers and those advising them in improving their knowledge, expertise and skills in environmental management areas.

22 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 35

Rural Farmers Event Number Professionals attending Attending ‘More than a Number’ farmer workshops (Ballance, Dairy 13 172 98 Women’s Network, DairyNZ and dairy companies)

‘EnviroReady’ workshops (DairyNZ) 8 170 115

Policy/Plan change workshops (DairyNZ) 78 2,405 993

Understanding Nutrient Budgets, Nutrient Management 30 473 368 Plans and Overseer workshops (DairyNZ)

Sustainable Milk Plans (SMPs) are a key dairy industry tool/process for farmers to assess their farm business with expert advice from trained farm consultants. In this last season 390 farm plans were completed in specific catchments. Nutrient budgets are a key part of the on-farm assessment (Upper Waikato (227), Waipa (10), Rotorua (22), Southland (12), Otago (8), Hurunui (80) and Selwyn (31)). This gives a total to date of 1,034 plans completed.

NITROGEN REPORTS, WHAT’S HOLDING UP THE PROGRESS?

There are a number of reasons for delays in reaching the nutrient management targets in the Accord.

• There has been a lot of discussion around Overseer (which is the main tool used to calculate N loss numbers). Farmers are regularly getting different numbers from different parties and some are disillusioned with the process.

• Some farmers have questioned the value of the report even when they have contributed to the programme. Those facing N regulations have a better idea of their value.

What is being done to address these concerns?

Dairy companies are gathering nitrogen report input information directly from farmers. Staff are also following up with farmers who have not engaged with the programme.

Publicity campaigns to remind farmers to provide dairy companies with this information and stressing its value in helping reduce nitrogen loss from farms and grow grass more effectively are also planned.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 23 36

Effluent Management

EXPECTATIONS: • Dairy farms will comply with regional council effluent management rules and/or resource consent conditions

• Effluent systems installed on dairy farms will be fit for purpose and able to achieve 365-day compliance with applicable rules

24 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 37

EFFLUENT SYSTEM ASSESSMENT & GUIDANCE

All dairy companies have programmes in place to assess the effluent systems of suppliers on a three-yearly basis, with several companies assessing every farm every year. The programmes are all designed to identify risks of non-compliance with regulatory requirements. All Accord dairy companies have reported on the farms assessed in the three-year period to 31 May 2015.

Of these farms in the 2014/15 season, 459 of the 588 identified as ‘at risk’ of not being fully compliant now have Effluent Improvement Plans in place. For the remaining 129 farms, the issues were dealt with within 24 hours.

TARGET 100% of farms are being assessed by 31 ACHIEVED May 2014

DairyNZ, along with industry partners (e.g. Institute of Professional Engineers of New Zealand (IPENZ) have developed a suite of standards, guides and tools. The aim is to increase capability within the farm dairy effluent (FDE) industry and providing greater certainty and security for farmers investing in effluent system upgrades. These systems include the FDE Design Standards and Code of Practice (after review Version 3 published in 2015), IPENZ Practice Note 21: FDE Pond Design and Construction (Published 2012) and the Dairy Effluent Storage Calculator (Massey University).

In the last season more specific technical guidance has been provided by the release of DairyNZ ‘Effluent Technical Notes’ covering energy capture systems from dairy effluent, odour management for storage ponds, dairy effluent treatment systems and pond leakage measurement approaches.

See www.dairynz.co.nz/environment/effluent for more details on systems and resources and their promotion.

ACCREDITATION OF EFFLUENT SYSTEM DESIGNERS FFLUE Y E NT IR SY A S There are currently 21 companies accredited as effluent system designers with all regions D T E

M M

R

now having access to an accredited company. Interest and awareness of the programme A F D D is high, with other stakeholders such as dairy companies and regional councils increasingly E E S IT recommending accredited companies. The list of accredited companies can be found at IG D N ACCRE www.effluentaccreditation.co.nz.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 25 38

FARMERS’ SPEND ON IMPROVED EFFLUENT SYSTEMS

Early in 2015 Federated Farmers and DairyNZ conducted a nationwide survey of dairy farmers to find out what they had spent on environmental initiatives over the last five years. Over one billion dollars has been spent. The majority (70%) of this investment is on effluent system upgrades as shown in figure 1 below. The survey findings demonstrate a significant commitment and investment by dairy farmers into proactive stewardship.

Average farm spend on environmental components by region

$180,000

$160,000

$140,000

$120,000 Other

$100,000 Wetlands Land retired Dollars $80,000

Riparian planting $60,000 Stock exclusion $40,000 Effluent management $20,000

$- BOP Waikato Taranaki Lower NI Northland WC-Tasman

Region Marl-Canterbury Otago-Southland

Figure 1. Summary of regional farm spend on environmental components

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING PROVIDED

There are a number of training courses on offer to the effluent services industry and other rural professionals (Table 2). As of 31 May 2015, 716 effluent industry professionals had attended training courses provided by several institutions. That includes the additional 145 professionals this season.

Table 2. Training courses on offer to the effluent services industry and other rural professionals.

Attendees* Training Date first offered No of courses run* (Cumulative from course start dates) Massey Farm Dairy Effluent Systems 2011 7 173 Design and Management

NZWETA Pond Design and Construction 2012 17 197

MPTA FDE Hydraulic Design 2012 18 107

QCONZ Dairy Effluent WOF 2014 5 64

Dairy Effluent Storage Calculator 2012 9 175 Training (run by DairyNZ)

Total 31 May 2015 716

*Information provided to DairyNZ from course providers

26 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 39

ON FARM TRAINING

The Primary ITO (Industry Training Organisation) runs two industry-designed effluent management courses for farm staff (Dealing with Dairy Effluent and Effluent Management Programme). The organisation reports 508 course completions in the 2014/15 year. This is double the number of attendees from the previous year and shows strong support for improved management of effluent systems and on-farm decision making (last season 247 reported attending).

FIT FOR PURPOSE EFFLUENT SYSTEMS EFFLU IRY EN A T D The Dairy Effluent ‘Warrant of Fitness’ (WOF) has been developed by DairyNZ as a voluntary programme to help farmers assess if they have a fit for purpose effluent system that can be ’ ’ WOFW S compliant 365 days a year. The WOF process uses a consistent methodology across the whole A S RR E AN ITN country and is available as a commercial service for farmers. T OF F

There are currently 20 certified ‘WOF’ assessors available to run through the assessment with farmers (14 WOF assessors were reported last season).

TARGET A farm dairy effluent Warrant of Fitness ACHIEVED scheme available as a tool for farmers by 31 May 2014

Details on the Warrant of Fitness can be found at www.effluentwof.co.nz.

CASE STUDY

Farmers fund water testing to find out the problems

Farmers in the Pomahaka River catchment in southwest Otago have teamed up to test water in their catchment to identify why and where water quality problems are occurring.

The catchment covers roughly 2060 square kilometres from its headwaters in the Umbrella Mountains to its junction with the Clutha River. The Pomahaka is a recognised trout fishery and is popular for swimming and kayaking.

Kelso farmer Lloyd McCall says he decided to take action when he found out that the river was under pressure. Eight-five farmers formed the Pomahaka Farmers Water Care Group. Each farmer contributed $250 to fund water quality testing. He is aiming to get 250 farmers on board.

“We wanted to find out what was causing the problems, so we could help to fix them,” says Lloyd.

Industry body DairyNZ is supporting the project by funding agricultural consultants to provide free advice and help 45 dairy farmers in the area develop Sustainable Milk Plans.

DairyNZ water quality specialist, Shirley Hayward has reviewed the data collected. She says there are localised issues with priority contaminants such as sediment, phosphorous, and e-coli bacteria. “These can be improved by good riparian management,” she says.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 27 40

RATES OF SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE

Every regional council undertakes annual monitoring of farm dairy effluent systems and management practices in relation to a range of permitted activity rules and consent conditions.

In the 2014/15 season the rate of significant non-compliance (SNC) on monitored farms at the national scale is 5.8% - the lowest on record (a drop from 7% for last season).

Rates of SNC vary widely between regions as shown in Figure 2. Highest rates of SNC were in Northland (21%) and Auckland (19%) and lowest rates were Hawke’s Bay, Greater Wellington, Horizons and Tasman regions. Marlborough was poorer performing this season for unknown reasons (14% SNC) with 56 farms inspected. There are a range of monitoring approaches across councils. Some councils adopt a targeted monitoring approach, some use random monitoring or monitor all farms and some repeat monitoring of poor performers (as described in Appendix 1). The details in the table in the Appendix have been provided by the regional councils.

This council data set represents more farms than the 11,504 in the Accord programme.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 % Significant Non-compliance 20

10

0

Otago Waikato Taranaki Horizons Tasman Northland Auckland Southland Hawkes Bay West CoastCanterbury Bay of Plenty Marlborough

Greater Wellington

Figure 2. Summary of regional council reported rates of significant non-compliance

The main reasons given by councils for SNC included inadequate storage facilities (e.g. ponds with insufficient freeboard or over-flowing), sumps overflowing and excess irrigation leading to ‘ponding’ or small pools of effluent remaining on paddocks. Some councils also cited issues with laneways and races.

DairyNZ comment: Most regional councils have moved to standardise their monitoring assessments across the country so comparisons of data are valid.

The dairy industry has made major improvements in effluent management. This has led to a few councils increasingly moving to targeted, high risk monitoring because they know most farmers are doing a good job.

28 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 41

This, in turn however, leads to a focus on farmers who are most likely to have issues on farm. Over time this is likely to distort the data when quoting percentages for significant non-compliance. Measuring compliance effectively and efficiently is an area that needs alignment across all regional councils to ensure useful monitoring of trends at both a national and regional level.

CASE STUDY

Sustainable Milk Plans – by the numbers

1,034 Sustainable Milk Plans now developed across the country

A preliminary analysis of Sustainable Milk Plan actions by farmers in the Upper Waikato area where 650 dairy farmers have been working together to help restore and protect the Waikato River, shows significant reductions in nutrient leaching. On average farmers reduced their nutrient loss by 16% for phosphorus (P) and by 8% for nitrogen (N). Farmers also recorded 1100 actions to improve water use efficiency.

Sustainable Milk Plans offer free, one-on-one advice and support to farms to develop a range of individualised and customised actions including nutrient management, effluent management and water use.

For more information visit www.dairynz.co.nz/upperwaikato

CASE STUDY

Farmers invest more than $8m to improve Lake Brunner water quality

West Coast dairy farmers have spent at least $8 million on conservation efforts to improve the water quality of Lake Brunner.

To date 70 kilometres of the streams flowing into Lake Brunner have been fenced off and 21,000 new plants have been added to banks to help prevent sediment from entering waterways. On top of this, 76 hectares of land has been retired by farmers. With each hectare valued at around $20,000, this amounts to a significant investment.

The lake, 37 kilometres southeast of Greymouth, is the largest lake on the West Coast and a popular recreation and tourism hub.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 29 42

Water Use Management

EXPECTATIONS: • Dairy sheds will use no more water for wash down and milk cooling than that necessary to produce hygienic and safe milk

• Irrigation systems will be designed and operated to minimise the amount of water needed to meet production objectives

30 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 43

WATER METERING ON DAIRY FARMS

Over 98% of all dairy farms were assessed for installed water meters in 2014/2015. Dairy companies reported that 3,500 farms (over 30% of total farms) have installed a water meter.

IN PROGRESS TARGET AND ON TRACK 85% of all dairy farms to install water (30% farms with water meters by meters by 2020 2014/15)

CASE STUDY

In depth study will help manage water use on dairy farms

DairyNZ is funding a three-year water use study on over 100 dairy farms across the country which aims to identify the seasonal patterns in water use associated with pasture-based dairy farming. It is also looking at estimating water leakages in stock drinking water. The study will also produce a model to predict water use on dairy farms. This study is the first in depth indication of milking parlour water usage on New Zealand dairy farms and the most detailed stock drinking water usage data to date. It is due to be completed in 2016.

The preliminary results from 2014/15 data collected from 47 farms indicate that stock drinking water and milking parlour water use follows a clear seasonal pattern. Stock drinking water increases gradually with the start of cows coming into milk production, reaching its peak in summer. Milking parlour water use climbed sharply at the start of the milking season, and plateaued until the start of summer, where it decreased with decreasing milk production. Stock drinking water was measured - averaging 106 litres/ cow/day at peak. Milking parlour water use was on par with current industry figures (70 litres/cow/day).

The preliminary study estimated water leakage (from broken underground pipes, cracked troughs etc) for the first time on pasture based dairy farms. It found it was a large component of the water measured as stock drinking water. Leakage is the highest in winter and early spring, when the weather is wettest. In summer, autumn and late spring leakage decreases.

Modelling results from the study’s preliminary data indicate that the main drivers for demand from stock for drinking water were maximum daily temperature and milk production. The main drivers for milking parlour water use were the farm size, milk production, shed size and milking frequency.

Final data and analysis from the DairyNZ water use study will be available by the end of 2016.

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 31 44

TRAINING, CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION

IrrigationNZ training and accreditation

IrrigationNZ is a Supporting Partner under the Accord. It co-ordinates training and development activities within the irrigation service sector, with details on its website (irrigationaccreditation.co.nz).

Irrigation New Zealand held 20 operator training workshops from June 2014 to May 2015 with 296 attendees. Currently two companies are accredited for irrigation design. IrrigationNZ is currently processing a further application and have a number of companies (6) working on applications. Ten people have been certified under the National Certificate in Irrigation System Performance Assessment programme (formerly known as the National Certificate in Irrigation Evaluation).

DairyNZ training

DairyNZ continues to support and promote the Smart Water Use on Dairy Farms Programme. DairyNZ ran four environmental events for farmers in 2014/15 and included a specific training session on smart water use.

The Smart Water Use resources continue to be updated and requested. Analysis of DairyNZ website statistics show that the Smart Water Use page had 1800 unique page views and 1010 Smart Water Use resources downloads during 2014/15.

Sustainable Milk Plans are a very good way for farmers to plan and implement a range of environmental actions customised to their farms, with every sustainable milk plan having a section on water efficiency. Results from the Upper Waikato Sustainable Milk Project (640 farms covered over three years) show that farmers recorded 1100 actions to improve water use efficiency.

ENVIRONMENTAL SPEND BY DAIRY FARMERS

$1 BILLION OVER 5 YEARS

32 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 45

CASE STUDY

Building dairy environment leaders – leading through doing

It takes a brave mind, a spirit of innovation and a

“ passion for what you are doing to step up, work with others and lead the industry into the future as dairy farmers who are both responsible and competitive.“ This combined with purpose and direction will create the accelerated action our industry requires.

Tracy Brown, chair of the Dairy Environment Leaders’ Forum

More than 3000 dairy farmers attended a series of DairyNZ training events in 2014/15 to increase their awareness of environmental issues affecting the industry.

Dairy Environment Leaders’ Forum – 2015

Ninety-six farmers attended the annual Wellington event in 2015 which supports dairy farmers to become environment leaders on their farms, in their communities and for their industry. Sessions were around sustainability, innovation, competitive advantage and leadership. There are now more than 300 farmer leaders networked through the forum.

Regional training programme

Thirteen Ahead of the Wave workshops were held in Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Horizons, Canterbury and Southland. The workshops hosted 285 farmers and gave them greater understanding of environmental issues. Topics included how nutrient limits are set, allocation methods, implications of limits and the importance of collective action.

The reality is that environmental impacts and “ issues vary significantly, both between and within

regions. As dairy farmers, we need to be aware

of the impacts we have and the best measures to mitigate them. Impacts from farming on“ irrigated land Canterbury gravels are very different to those on rolling clay soils in Northland.

Conall Buchanan, Waikato dairy farmer and a member of the Dairy Environment Leaders’ Forum

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 33 46

Conversions

EXPECTATIONS: • New dairy farms establish and operate using good practice at the outset to minimise potential negative consequences on water values and interests

• New dairy conversions will comply with all relevant regional plan rules and/or hold all necessary resource consents

34 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 47

Dairy companies have recently introduced programmes to assess new conversions. These outline a range of requirements that must be met before milk supply commences. The process would usually include a trained company assessor visiting the farm and running through a check procedure to ensure all requirements are met. These requirements focus on environmental good practice around effluent, waterways, nutrient management and meeting regulatory requirements. Since 2013, dairy companies identified 175 conversions, with 50 farms measured as complying with these standards.

By 29 February 2016, dairy companies report that of 142 farms, 81% are now fully compliant with the accord requirements.

DairyNZ’s Guide to Responsible Conversions has been downloaded 360 times in 2014/15. This guidance is available at www.dairynz.co.nz. The guide links farmers and their advisors to a wide range of other useful tools and resources developed by DairyNZ.

IN PROGRESS TARGET (29% measured All new dairy farm conversions comply as complying with environmental standards before with standard by May 2015; 81% milk supply commences by March 2016)

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 35 36 |SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATERACCORD –TWOYEARS ON Appendix 1: Dairy effluent significant non-compliance data supplied by regional councils and unitary authorities for the 2014-15 season

Region Total No. of Description of monitoring % significant Main reasons for significant non-compliance farms farms programme non-compliance monitored (SNC)

Northland 963 963 Non-notified visit to every farm every 21% • Untreated effluent discharges to water (entry/exit races; year. Samples taken of all discharges. feedpads; underpasses) All visits done between mid-August and • Consented farms – water quality test results outside consent limits Christmas each year. Follow-up visits to • Unauthorised discharges to water of treated effluent on non- all significant non-compliant farms by consented farms appointment.

• Inadequate management – e.g. broken pipes, sump overflow) 48 Approximately 710 consented farms • Effluent irrigation – excessive ponding and/or overland flow and 255 non-consented farms1.

Auckland 286 168 Targeted inspections based on risk 19% • Pond overflows and/or suspected seepages – type of discharge (water vs land), • Silage leachate discharges compliance history, storage capacity, • Sump/stone trap overflows etc. • Effluent discharge from the stormwater diversion pipes • Race ponding and run-off • Discharges from feedpads • Over application from irrigator

Bay of ~690 290 Unannounced visits. All sites are 9% • Pond(s) full - breaching consent free board limit Plenty inspected between one and three • Ponds overflowing yearly, depending on previous • Effluent irrigation causing bad ponding and /or runoff to water compliance history and type of disposal • Effluent observed discharging through the storm water diversion system. system • No increased storage as required by consent Waikato ~4400 453 2Continue to target particular areas but 3% • Effluent overflow from sumps give farmers notice of visits. The focus • Discharge from effluent holding ponds of these visits is to assess infrastructure. • Uncontained effluent off race ways and yards • Effluent over application

Hawke’s Bay 82 82 All farms monitored. 0% N/A

Taranaki 1773 1773 Non-notified inspections. We inspect 1.5% • Oxidation pond discharges (from sampling) all farms annually with oxidation pond • Unauthorised discharges to water (overland flow from irrigators, discharges sampled every second year. holding pond overflows, sump overflows or first oxidation pond Inspection round begins on 1 July and overflow. ends on approximately 31 March.

Horizons 886 8163 Notified visits to every farm up to 1 1% • Over application of effluent and pond/sump overflows week in advance.

Greater 174 174 All farms monitored. ‘Unannounced’ 0.6% • Ponding 49 SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING:WATER ACCORD– TWOYEARSON |37 Wellington visits (no more than 1 hour notice given).

Tasman 143 143 All farms inspected re compliance with 0 N/A the Permitted activity rules and/or respective consent conditions. Tasman has five farms that have consent to discharge treated effluent to water. Four of these farms also discharge to land. 24hrs max notice – the farmer is needed on site to answer questions relative to the rules.

Marlborough 57 (40 56 (one All operating farms monitored. Non- 14% • Lack of contingency plan including storage being full or non- farm not notified visit to every farm. Follow up overflowing. consented, operational) visits to significant non-compliant farms • Location of storage system within 20m of a waterway without 17 until they are compliant. resource consent. consented) • Over-irrigation of effluent causing ponding 38 |SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATERACCORD –TWOYEARS ON Region Total No. of Description of monitoring % significant Main reasons for significant non-compliance farms farms programme non-compliance monitored (SNC)

West Coast 391 352 ( 5 not All farms with a discharge to water 2.5% • Sump overflows, unconsented discharges milking consent (from treatment ponds) must and 34 PA be visited annually.

farms) Permitted activity farms are visited according to their compliance rating from the last season4. Some farms will be rated as high risk and will be monitored more frequently.

Canterbury 1149 976 All dairy farm consents were assessed 5.5% • Ponding or over application of effluent 5 against five risk criteria. All high and • Storage overflow medium risk farms were monitored at • Ponding, application depth and water-holding capacity least once. Some high risk farms were 50 • Storage overflow monitored more than once regardless of whether they were compliant on the • Undiluted dairy effluent volume exceeded first inspection. Some low risk farms • Discharged outside of area were also monitored however low risk • Discharge outside of buffer zone distances farms will not be monitored every year.

Otago 451 451 All farms field inspected and assessed 4.4% • Stalled and failed travelling irrigators for compliance with the prohibited • Discharges from laneways rules. All inspections are cold call. • Overland flow • Discharges on saturated soils; • Overflowing ponds and sumps; • Ponding • Discharges to rivers. Southland 861 861 All dairy farms are consented to 4.5% • DSE entering waterways discharge effluent to land, the • Ponding consent contains specific conditions • Overflowing ponds including number of inspections. If • Poor management practices (applying to saturated soils, a farm has two or more inspections, applying directly above tile drains or nova flow pipes) one inspection will be completed from the air. Number of inspections is • Laneway management decided on matters such as risk to the environment, history etc. Inspections have a notification of approx. 15 minutes 51 SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING:WATER ACCORD– TWOYEARSON |39

1 Northland’s significant non-compliance was 20% for consented farms and 26% for non-consented farms.

2 Late last year, after a detailed review by a special working party, which included councillors and industry representatives, Waikato Regional Council announced a fresh approach which was judged to be more appropriate in the current climate. Helicopter monitoring is no longer used.

3 70 sheds were not inspected this season due to inspection program abandoned because of July flood event (Horizons)

4 If the farm was non-compliant the year before it will continue to be visited annually (or more often dependent on the issues) until the council is satisfied all the issues that made the farm non- compliant have been addressed. If permitted activity farms are continually compliant then they will only be visited once every two years (West Coast).

5 Risk criteria: scale – the number of cows or nitrogen loading rate; affected environment – the depth to ground water, topography of the site, presence of waterways, artificial drainage etc ; mechanism of damage – the toxicity or persistence of the effluent (this is defaulted to medium for dairy effluent); compliance history – whether there was any previous occurrences of significant non-compliance or enforcement action, quality management – whether they are farming to good management practices or have a Farm Environment Plan (Canterbury). 52

Auditor’s statement

Telarc SAI Ltd carried out an independent audit of the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord (SDWA) data collected for the 2014/15 season. The assessment was performed in accordance with the Telarc SAI Ltd standard operational procedures which comply with the requirements of ISO 17021-1:2015.

Telarc SAI Ltd was engaged to perform a review of the systems and practices used for data collection by dairy companies and to perform a check of the reliability of a sample of farm-level information (through on the ground verification of reported information). The assessment programme included review of DairyNZ specific objectives as well their dairy company data consolidation process, data collection processes at five dairy companies and on-farm verification of 77 data sets. The assessments were performed during the period December 2015 to February 2016. During the course of the SDWA audit a number of improvement activities were identified during the assessment process – corrective actions would support further achievement of the SDWA objectives, improve effectiveness of supporting processes and facilitate positive third party verification processes.

The scope of the assessment was focused on data from the 2014/15 season only and the review was performed against expectations and commitments defined in the following standards:

• Both the 2013 and 2015 versions of the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord.

• Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord Audit standard (DairyNZ requirements) v6 December 2015.

• Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord Audit standard (Dairy Company Requirements) v8 December 2015.

Topics not covered in the assessment include; financial data, case studies and 2016 data.

The assessment confirmed that in general suitable processes have been implemented to guide and enable achievement of SDWA commitments. It was noticed that waterway stock exclusion on a dairy farm is now regarded as a given and a non-negotiable industry requirement. The five dairy companies are to be commended for the significant improvements made in processing of nutrient data and for raising the awareness to reduce effluent discharge to water.

The DairyNZ developed riparian planting and soon to be released recording software as well as in-house initiatives at various dairy companies are positioning the industry for successful achievement of riparian planting objectives defined for 2020 and 2030. Farm visits confirmed significant compliance levels for new dairy conversions – albeit that record retention challenges are being carefully managed. Similarly, evidence confirmed that wetlands on dairy farms visited had adequate stock exclusion. However, integrating Council identified wetlands information with farm level information presents some challenges. The most significant medium term challenge relates to further refining the nutrient management processes to a level of being meaningful. Some challenges were experienced in confirming achievement levels of commitments defined for SDWA Supporting Partners.

Given the scale of reporting (around 11,500 farms), data accuracy was in general at an adequate level. DairyNZ used a structured approach to collect and consolidate dairy company data. During the assessment process DairyNZ was alerted to some improvement opportunities related to farms not included in the report, multi-season data being reported and one data set that should be excluded. Adequate corrective actions have been taken. Data discrepancies at farm level were communicated to dairy companies. Data sets were not adjusted at the time and would not have had a significant impact on the overarching totals reported.

40 | SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON 53

Reports acknowledging improvements made over the past 12 months detailing improvement opportunities and recording performance against the respective audit standards have been compiled and issued to the respective dairy companies and DairyNZ. The findings from these individual reports have been consolidated in an overarching report.

The overarching, industry level report identified three key recommendations:

Recommendation 1:

In view of wetlands being found to have adequate stock exclusion (as part of the waterway stock exclusion objective), consider re-evaluating the need to link on-farm wetland data to Council identified wetlands. So far this has proven to be challenging, time consuming and creates levels of ambiguity. Additionally it might not add more value in terms of wetland stock exclusion practices.

Recommendation 2:

SDWA Supporting Partners have specific commitments defined and included in the SDWA. Despite requests by DairyNZ to provide relevant, auditable information there were times when this proved difficult to find and or extract. A case in point identified during the course of the audit were some recent changes in the nature of the relationships with fertiliser companies that has led to variations in the way in which dairy companies were establishing nutrient management processes. This change does highlight the need for the SDWA Supporting Partners to review relevant processes to ensure continued achievement of their SDWA commitments and availability of relevant, auditable data.

Revalidation may include actions such as:

• Reviewing the terms of reference for the association with supporting partners;

• Reconsider the inclusion of commitments in the SDWA from all supporting partners.

Recommendation 3:

As detailed earlier, varying levels of understanding of the SDWA were identified during the audit resulting in a small number of less than supportive opinions being expressed, and mixed levels of engagement being experienced by the Telarc audit team. Generally speaking the overall levels of support for the SDWA were adequate, but in saying this it is recommended that the DairyNZ data collection programme and third party verification thereof will run more effectively through the implementation of a series of continuous improvement activities. These activities are to be tabled with DairyNZ, DELG and DCANZ. It has been agreed these will be prioritised for ongoing action and deployment to ensure that the assessment of 2015/2016 audit is even more successful than the one just completed.

To read a full copy of the Auditor’s Report for 2014/15, go to www.dairynz.co.nz/wateraccord

SUSTAINABLE DAIRYING: WATER ACCORD – TWO YEARS ON | 41 54

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Submission on Next steps for fresh water consultation document

Item: 3

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1667238

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce a submission made to the Next steps for fresh water consultation document released by the Ministry for the Environment and to recommend its endorsement by the Council.

A copy of the submission is attached to this memorandum for Members’ information.

Submissions closed on 22 April 2016.

A draft submission was circulated to Members for input prior to the closing date. Executive summary The Government has released its proposals for further reform of freshwater management and has invited public submissions.

The Committee received a briefing on the reform proposals at its March 2016 meeting and a draft submission was circulated to Members for comment prior to it being submitted by the due date of 22 April 2016.

The submission repeats calls made in the Council’s earlier submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill for fundamental changes to be made to the RMA plan preparation process. It comments on a number of concerns relating to freshwater and the environment including proposals to introduce nation-wide regulation concerning stock assess to waterways. Comment is also made on proposals to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for a wide range of freshwater management purposes. While this is supported in principle discussions need to occur on the details. The Council calls for consideration to be given to charging for permitted activity monitoring and for the ability of councils to charge financial contributions to be retained.

55

In relation to iwi rights and interests in freshwater, the Council reaffirms its historical view that no one ‘owns’ freshwater.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum Submission on Next steps for fresh water consultation document 2. endorses the submission.

Background Members will recall having received a briefing on the Next steps for fresh water consultation document at the last meeting of the Committee held on 17 March 2016.

To recap briefly, these reforms follow amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014, ongoing dialogue with the Iwi Leaders Group and further work of the Land and Water Forum and have been signalled for some time.

The proposals for further reform have been grouped around four broad themes: freshwater and the environment, economic use of fresh water, iwi rights and interests in fresh water and freshwater funding.

Proposals for reform to do with freshwater and the environment are of interest to the Council, particularly a number of the proposals that would amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and also the proposal to introduce regulations excluding stock from waterbodies. The proposals also cover a wide range of matters to do with the economic use of fresh water including investigating a package of measures to enable transfers of consents to higher value uses, and improving or strengthening hapu and iwi relationships with fresh water.

These matters and others were discussed by the Committee at its March 2016 meeting, which resulted in the attached submission being drafted and sent to the Ministry for the Environment by the due date.

The submission

While not part of the consultation document proposals, the submission repeats calls made in the Council’s earlier submission on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill for fundamental changes to be made to the RMA plan preparation process. An adaptive management approach supported by an agile planning system that can produce achievable, relevant and timely decisions is called for.

The submission raises questions about proposed changes to the NZSFM to clarify what it means to ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’, the proposal to introduce the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) as a nation-wide measure of water quality and the costs to the region and to the country of making significant infrastructure in Taranaki comply with National Objective Framework bottom lines.

Comment is also made on the proposal to introduce a national regulation to exclude stock from water bodies with the Council submitting that any regulations relating to excluding

56

stock from water bodies must recognise and provide for and must not undermine, existing successful programmes. The Council maintains that it must have the ability to set more stringent rules to suit local conditions and circumstances, than the nationally prescribed minimum standard.

The whole issue of riparian management requires buy-in from landowners and the Council considers that it is best approached as a fully supported voluntary programme in the first instance.

The Council supports in principle proposals in the discussion document to increase the ability of council to recover costs from water users for monitoring enforcement, research and management, although very little detail is provided on how this would be done. The Council notes that it has made extensive use of cost recovery mechanisms to date.

An area of change that the Council would like to see given serious consideration is in charging for permitted activity monitoring. Another area of concern for the Council is the proposal in the recently introduced Resource Legislation Amendment Bill to remove the ability of councils to charge financial contributions. The Council notes that financial contributions have helped resolve many submissions on resource consent applications to the benefit of all concerned. We note that financial contributions can be an effective financial instrument under the RMA and would not like to see these costs passed on to ratepayers.

Finally, in relation to iwi rights and interests in freshwater, the Council reaffirms its historical view that no one owns freshwater. The Council maintains that freshwater is a public resource that should be managed for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

57

Attachment Document 1661032: Submission on freshwater consultation

58

22 April 2016 Document: 1661032

Freshwater Consultation Ministry for the Environment PO Box 10362 Wellington 6143

Submission on Freshwater Consulation 2016

Introduction

1. The Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) thanks the Ministry for the Environment for the opportunity to make a submission on the Government’s latest announcements for freshwater reform.

2. The Council makes this submission in recognition of the purpose of local government set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the role, status and powers, and principles under that Act, relating to local authorities. In particular, the Council has prepared this submission in recognition of its:

• function and responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act or the RMA) • regional advocacy responsibilities whereby the Council represents the Taranaki region on matters of regional significance and concern.

3. The Council has also been guided by its Mission Statement, ‘To work for a thriving and prosperous Taranaki’ across all of its various functions, roles and responsibilities, in preparing this submission.

Issue not dealt with – plan agility

4. The issue of plan agility is not dealt with in the consultation document yet in the Council’s view is one of the key areas of change that could and should be made to freshwater management, and the RMA more generally.

5. At the moment, RMA plan preparation and change processes are inflexible, expensive and complex and do not deliver timely decisions for our communities in a fast changing world. Plan agility (or the lack of it) is a very serious problem that needs to be fixed. Current plan making processes have become counterproductive and are themselves part of the problem, producing adverse outcomes. Current legislative fixes involving collaborative models such as in Canterbury, have still not brought down the timeframes for plan preparation to where they need to be. Decisions need to be made in months rather than years as is currently the case.

59

6. The reality is that RMA plan making processes are not the norm – they are very much the exception. Many other examples exist of public sector decisions being made in months because that is the realty of the modern world we live in.

7. As an alternative to the costly and time consuming process of plan making under the RMA, the Council strongly urges the Ministry to look beyond current thinking about plan making under the RMA and look for bold and more innovative solutions perhaps drawing on processes adopted in other statutes such as the Local Government Act 2002, as a model.

8. The Council has recently made extensive submissions to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee on this matter in relation to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. In its submission, the Council argues for a much simplified and adaptable plan making process that can keep up with the reality of changes in community expectations and the environment. The changes we propose would be consistent with the principles of administrative law that all local authorities must comply with in public consultation and decision making. For example, drawing on provisions in the Local Government Act 2002, those affected by proposals would be given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard before decisions are made. Discretionary judgements would be made about different options, consideration given to their benefits and costs and these weighed up in proportion to the significance of the proposals.

9. Furthermore, there would be no appeals of local authority decisions concerning the merits of particular cases but there would be an opportunity for judicial review of decisions through the High Court and beyond. This provides appropriate safeguards to the public that councils are discharging their functions within the law and are acting reasonably and fairly, free from bias and predetermination of outcome. Decisions would be made in months rather than the six to seven years it currently takes on average to get plans through the RMA process.

10. Such agile, responsive and timely decision making processes are of particular significance to freshwater management where natural systems are highly complex, multifaceted and extremely site specific. The international literature is referring to this as ‘postnormal science’ where science is issue-driven, within complex systems and where both the decision stakes and uncertainties in predictions are high.1 The result is that adaptive management approaches with monitoring of water quality and ecological responses, carried out in response to a wide range of intervention measures, is seen as offering the best regime for public policy initiatives. Such approaches are also supported by the OECD.

11. Adaptive management requires a high degree of plan agility. Nowhere is this need greater than in freshwater management. The systems are complex, the uncertainties are great and more often than not targeted site-specific interventions are required down to farm or paddock scale. An adaptive management regime supported by

1 See for example Helen P. Jarvie, et al: ‘Phosphorus mitigation to control river eutrophication: Murky waters, inconvenient truths, and ‘postnormal’ science’. Journal of Environmental Quality. January 2013, pp295 – 304.

60

planning instruments that can deliver specific, achievable, relevant and timely decisions are required. The current reform proposals do not address this fundamental issue and they should.

12. The Council’s remaining comments follow the topics set out in the ‘Next steps for fresh water’ consultation document.

The reforms so far

13. Pages 8 to 10 of the consultation document outline the reforms that have been made to date since 2009. The consultation document emphasises in a number of places the importance of community-based decision making on fresh water management. For example on page 8:

‘The reforms emphasise that local communities, through councils, are in the best position to make decisions about the fresh water in their region, taking local conditions, needs and aspirations into account.’

14. An again on page 10:

‘Councils are primarily responsible for managing fresh water in their local catchments. It is up to them to work with their communities and iwi to determine their region’s environmental aspirations for waterways and to allocate water for economic use’.

15. The consultation document goes on to say that the Government is providing guidance, capability-building and other support to help implement the reforms.

16. The Council fully endorses this community based approach and urges central government to keep these ideas at the forefront of thinking about future reform of our fresh water management system.

17. Also, as has been pointed out in the consultation document, any reform of fresh water management will need to be realistic about timeframes. A sustainable improvement in freshwater environments where degradation has occurred is a long- term process where measurable results may not show up for decades. These long- term processes for changes to natural systems need to be factored into decision making.

Fresh water and our environment

‘Maintain or improve overall’ water quality

18. The proposal to provide further guidance to regional councils on what it means to ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’ would be a positive move and one that would be welcomed by the Council. However, there is still considerable uncertainty as to how a region will be able to demonstrate that it has achieved maintenance or improvement of overall water quality, despite what is proposed in the consultation document.

61

19. What is being proposed is the ability to retain the flexibility of the ‘unders and overs’ approach (which is supported by the Council) but to have this apply within a freshwater management unit (FMU) rather than across a region as a whole as is currently dictated by the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM).

20. In Taranaki we had proposed to have only four FMUs for the whole region. While rivers within a FMU have similar characteristics and management objectives, there is variability from one catchment to another within an FMU. For example, for the FMU, Volcanic Ring Plain, water quality is generally sitting in the B band for most attributes but there are some areas where water quality is in a higher band and others where water quality may occasionally fall below this band for a single attribute. Some further clarity is therefore required on how the ‘unders and overs’ approach will work in practice taking into account the variability within catchments in the same FMU.

21. As to how the attributes should be applied or the values protected in giving effect to the requirement to maintain or improve overall water quality, the Council would support a mixture of science-based and narrative-based attributes. For iwi in particular, the use of narrative-based attributes will often be preferable.

22. There is also the question of uncertainty arising from case law on the meaning or application of the words in the NPS-FM to ‘maintain or improve overall water quality’. The Council maintains that this issue will need to be resolved one way or another before councils notify their plans under the RMA as the prospect of legal challenge represents very real risks for many councils.

Macroinvertebrate Community Index as a measure of water quality

23. The Government proposes to make the use of the Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) mandatory for monitoring the ecological health of rivers, but without (at this stage) setting numerical targets or attribute states. The Ministry accepts that in its current form, the MCI does not lend itself to being included as an attribute in the National Objectives Framework. The intention is that that the Ministry will continue to work with the Land and Water Forum and the science community to investigate how measures of MCI could be included as an attribute.

24. The Taranaki Regional Council developed the MCI and has the largest MCI database in the country with the longest record. While the Council sees the MCI as the ideal tool for monitoring trends in ecosystem health, it has serious concerns with introducing it as part of a national tool to determine compliance with quantified universal standards or criteria. To do so would ignore a wide range of factors that drive what an MCI value should be for any given stretch of any given waterway. There is potential for very significant mismatches between water health intentions and the application of universal MCI values.

25. The Council wishes to be involved in any future discussions about the use of the MCI in the National Objectives Framework (NOF).

62

Significant infrastructure and water quality

26. Staff of the Council have reviewed all existing infrastructure and consulted with relevant consent holders and consider that five hydroelectric power schemes in the region are appropriate infrastructure for inclusion in Appendix 3 of the NPS-FM. These are the Patea, Motukawa, Mangorei, Opunake and Normanby hydroelectric power schemes and all schemes hold current consents with the Council.

27. The Council is not currently monitoring for NOF attributes such as periphyton in rivers immediately below these hydroelectric power schemes and so has no current data to show whether sites at these schemes breach NOF bottom lines. However, our extensive field observations would suggest that, at some point in time, there would be a compliance issue with the NOF, if for example a monthly monitoring system had been in place for the previous three years.

28. All but the Patea Scheme predate the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 and the Patea Scheme predates the RMA. All schemes have therefore been in existence for some considerable time but all now hold resource consents under the RMA following a negotiated process with the community (including neighbours, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Iwi and others). These schemes also recognise the importance of local hydroelectric power generation and renewable energy supplies to both the Taranaki region and the nation.

29. The cost of making these schemes comply with the NOF would be significant and would undermine the Government’s goals of increasing renewable energy generation to 90% by 2025 and transitioning to a low-carbon economy.

Stock exclusion from waterways

30. The consultation document proposes to create a national regulation that requires exclusion of dairy cattle from waterbodies by 1 July 2017 and other stock types at later dates. This timeline cuts directly across the Council’s own proposed regulatory programme to require riparian fencing and planting by 2020 and was one of the reasons that led to the Council delaying notification of its proposed Freshwater and Land Management Plan for Taranaki under the RMA.

31. The consultation document also proposes that the national regulations will not require riparian buffers to be set aside i.e. it will only require fencing of the waterway to exclude stock from entering the waterway. The Council’s Riparian Management Programme emphasises the environmental benefits of including a riparian margin despite the added costs of doing so, and all riparian plans that have been prepared (amounting to about 99.5% of the region’s 1,760 dairy farms), include a suitable riparian margin agreed with the landowner.

32. Any national regulations relating to excluding stock from waterways must recognise and provide for and must not undermine, existing successful programmes. The Council must have the ability to set more stringent rules or apply these more widely than the nationally prescribed minimum set out in the regulations.

63

33. There is also the question of the effectiveness of a nationally prescribed regulation relating to stock exclusion from waterbodies. The Council points to oversees experience, notably in Denmark, where regulation in this area has not been successful. At an international conference on land use and water quality held in 2015 and attended by Council staff, conference presenters noted that progress on implementing a regulatory response to riparian management in Denmark had stalled amid arguments about how the regulations would apply to individual situations.

34. The whole issue of riparian management requires buy-in from landowners and is best approached as a fully supported voluntary programme in the first instance, as has been applied very successfully in Taranaki. Regulation can be used to ‘mop-up’ those who have not taken the opportunity to buy into the programme.

Economic use of fresh water

Technical efficiency and good management practice standards

35. One of the proposals in the consultation document is to develop technical efficiency standards that will be required to be applied in catchments that are at or approaching full allocation. The idea is that this will create ‘headroom’ to free up water for new users. This will require very detailed and very good accounting systems that can pinpoint exactly when a water user will need or not need to exercise their entitlement. Existing water users may also need to build in some contingencies to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. There is potential for great cost and sub- optimal outcomes if disputes develop between new and existing water users over access to and use of the resource.

36. The Council supports Government proposals to consult with industry to develop Good Management Practice (GMP) standards for discharges of contaminants to water for different sectors, climate and soil types. Many GMPs will be transferable to other parts of the country with similar climate and soil types etc. This will help avoid the duplication of each council developing their own standards.

37. Where councils have chosen to allocate discharge allowances and catchments are at or approaching full allocation, or are over-allocated, the Council would support a requirement that the GMP standards apply over time, to those catchments.

38. In other cases the consultation document proposes that GMP standards will provide guidance to councils for managing diffuse discharges. The Council supports the use of guidance in the first instance rather than a regulatory response in these situations.

Transferring consents to more efficient, higher value uses

39. The Council’s operative Fresh Water Plan already has policy on this but additional moves to enable and encourage consents to be transferred to more efficient and higher valued uses is supported.

40. Making information available, including public registers of consented and used water and discharge allowances may be beneficial. Model plan provisions specifying

64

where and in what circumstances transfers are permitted could also be helpful provided these are not mandatory requirements to be applied across the country.

Council funding for freshwater management

41. Increasing the ability of councils to recover costs from water users for monitoring, enforcement, research and management is supported in principle.

42. The Taranaki Regional Council has for over 30 years made extensive use of cost recovery in all aspects of water management including monitoring and enforcement and in the general processing and administration of resource consents. There may be opportunity for some councils to make greater use of existing cost recovery mechanisms. 43. However, there are increasing obligations being imposed on councils to spend more on water resources management generally and on science, monitoring and enforcement. This Council would support an increase in the ability to recover costs from those water users who impose costs on the freshwater management system.

44. One area of change that the Council would like to see given serious consideration is in charging for permitted activity monitoring. At the moment the inability to charge for permitted activity monitoring may well be acting as a disincentive to classify activities as permitted, resulting in unnecessary resource consent requirements.

45. Another area of concern to the Council is the proposal in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill to remove the ability of councils to charge financial contributions on resource consents under section 108 of the RMA. The Council has made strong submissions on this point to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee noting that the removal of the ability to charge financial contributions will have a significant impact on this Council’s consent processes and operations, and on consent applicants. The financial contributions provisions of the Council’s plans have helped resolve many submissions on consent applications and have assisted business in reaching mutually agreeable solutions with submitters to the benefit of all concerned.

46. The financial contributions provisions are an actively used provision of the law in Taranaki and in many cases is the only way of addressing environmental effects. It is quite possible that the removal of the ability to charge financial contributions will lead to expensive and time consuming hearings being required for activities.

47. In our experience, charging for a range of activities can be an effective financial instrument to achieve better environmental outcomes in resource management. The Council would not like to see these opportunities narrowed down or done away with altogether or simply passed on to general ratepayers. The more tools that can be applied to the resource management system the better the potential outcome is likely to be.

48. Increasing the ability for councils to recover costs from water users will certainly give greater flexibility in how councils meet the costs of improving freshwater

65

management. They may then be in a better position to resource changes to the freshwater management system.

49. The Council suggests that the Ministry look closely at the cost recovery provisions of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 which the Council considers to be a very good basis on which to consider further cost recovery provisions.

50. The Council considers that more detail on the proposal to increase the ability of councils to recover costs from water users is needed and seeks that it be involved in any future discussions on the topic.

Iwi rights and interests in freshwater

51. The Council wishes to reaffirm its historical view that no one ‘owns’ freshwater. Freshwater is a public resource that is to be managed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Councils have been charged by statute with allocating water permits or discharge permits that have maximum time limits imposed on them with review clauses etc. The Council maintains that the fundamentals of publically accountable bodies allocating permits or privileges in water in accordance with publically considered, long term planning frameworks, have worked well for all New Zealanders.

52. However, the Council supports proposals that recognise and provide for iwi and hapu rights and interests in freshwater to be an integral part of the decision making process. The Council already has strong policy commitments with respect to iwi and hapu involvement in freshwater management.

53. Many of the questions around iwi rights and interests in freshwater will come down to iwi capacity and resourcing. In this Council’s experience there are considerable benefits in dealing with iwi who have settled their historical Treaty claims in terms of their ability to engage. Access to a national fund could also help facilitate iwi involvement in or engagement about freshwater.

Freshwater funding

54. The Council supports the proposed Freshwater Improvement Fund. While the Council has not received funding in the past (largely because we are doing our own job), there may be opportunities to access the fund in future.

Conclusion

55. The Council again thanks the Ministry for the Environment for the opportunity to comment on proposals in the consultation document on the next steps for fresh water.

56. The Council has had many years of experience in freshwater management and is keen to share this with the Ministry. The Council looks forward to involvement in

66

further discussions on a number of important matters raised in the consultation document.

Yours faithfully

B G Chamberlain Chief Executive

67

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: LAWA River of the Month

Item: 4

Approved by: M J Nield Director – Corporate Services

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1675660

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce the video on the Waingongoro River, which will feature as the River of the Month for May 2016, on the national Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website.

Recommendation That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. notes that the Waingongoro River, which will feature as the River of the Month for May 2016, on the national Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website and receives the associated video.

Background Initially a collaboration between New Zealand’s 16 regional and unitary councils, LAWA is now a partnership between the councils, Cawthron Institute, Ministry for the Environment and Massey University and has been supported by the Tindall Foundation.

LAWA was established as New Zealand’s hub of environmental data. The data currently presented on the website has an appeal to the public but also serves the scientific and policy communities.

Each month a river from one region is featured as “River of the Month” to tell the story of how the water quality and ecology of the river is being restored. The series of short videos are produced with funding from the Tindall Foundation.

The Waingongoro River is featured as the LAWA “River of the Month” for May 2016.

Council staff saw the video as an opportunity to highlight the gains that have been made in water quality across the region rather than attempt to focus on an isolated “problem”. It is

68

noteworthy that the elimination of Eltham’s wastewater discharge to the Waingongoro River was the last of the region’s big point-source pollution problems.

The video shows how the story of the Waingongoro River is typical of the rivers on the ring plain. It illustrates the hard work and investment that is being made by industry and the community to eliminate or reduce the impacts on the region’s waterways and how the long- term trends in ecological health and physicochemical water quality are showing good improvement.

Councils, iwi, rural communities and farmers and industries have all worked together to achieve good environmental outcomes in the Waingongoro catchment. The Council will continue to support efforts to build on the gains that have already been made.

Four key stakeholders, Stephen Hall, Taranaki Regional Council; Iain Steven, ANZCO Foods Eltham; dairy farmer Bill Gribble and Daisy Noble, Ngāruahine are featured in the video. While Council staff assisted with the production of the video, there was no input into the stakeholders’ comments which were completely their own.

The video will be promoted through the Council website and social media accounts. It can be viewed at www.lawa.org.nz.

The video will be shown during the meeting.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

69

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Comparison of national and overseas bathing water quality criteria

Item: 5

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director – Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1674637

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Members with background information concerning bathing water criteria, and how the standards being applied in New Zealand compare with those applied through the Bathing Water Directive in Europe. An attachment to this memo provides background technical information.

Executive summary There is a current conversation at the national level over whether water bodies are or should be either ‘swimmable’ or ‘wadeable’. These are terms that are derived from the values and attributes that are prescribed within the National Objectives Framework (NOF) set out in Appendix 2 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014.

The values (purposes for which each community use water) set out in the NOF are compulsory, and the associated numeric measures that define the state of each attribute are likewise obligatory. That is, the Council must recognise the values within its fresh water resource management regime, and must apply the numerical categorisations as they stand. The ‘swimmable’ (primary contact) criteria and classifications are to be applied at recognised bathing sites during the bathing season when people are most likely to be bathing; the ‘wadeable’ (secondary contact) criteria are to be based on measurements taken all year round on a routine basis, regardless of whether people might be able to or desire to use the water for any recreational purposes.

There is a line of argument that New Zealand should have an NPS objective of all surface waters being swimmable all year round; there is usually a parallel concern and belief that we cannot yet meet this proffered alternative objective, but we should be able to.

70

In the light of that conversation, it is informative to review the requirements of the latest Bathing Water Directive from the European Commission1. These countries together represent a large collective of the research capacity, scientific investment, and cumulative body of knowledge within the western world.

When that review is conducted, it becomes apparent that New Zealand has chosen to impose far more stringent tests upon ‘swimmability’ than is the case in Europe. Consequently, many of our rivers that would be deemed unacceptable for bathing according to the NPS-NOF, would be regarded as quite acceptable for swimming in Europe.

In reviewing the Council’s Regional Fresh Water Plan for Taranaki, the Council and community will need to make decisions about expectations and objectives for various potential and actual uses of water in the region, including batheability. This memo provides information around context and perspective for that discussion.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum ‘Comparison of national and overseas bathing water quality criteria’ 2. notes the significant differences in bathing water criteria between those applied in New Zealand and those applied in Europe 3. notes that further consideration will be given to values and attribute states to be applied to water quality in the region through the review of the Regional Fresh Water Plan for Taranaki.

Background The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 requires that the Council, in giving effect to the NPS, is ‘to safeguard…. (b) the health of people and communities, at least as affected by secondary contact with fresh water; in sustainably managing the use and development of land, and of discharges of contaminants’ (Objective A1 for Water Quality, emphasis added). This objective has been criticised as an inadequate objective, usually accompanied by a proposition along the lines that ‘all rivers in New Zealand should be swimmable’. There is then usually some analysis indicating how many rivers in New Zealand are not in the ‘swimmable’ category, as defined according to the criteria set out within the National Objectives Framework (NOF). It was therefore considered informative to ascertain what criteria are applied in Europe. Discussion ‘Swimmability’ (regular recreational use of water involving primary contact with frequent full immersion) in Europe is prescribed through the 2006 European Commission Bathing Water Directive. While the Directive is dated 2006, it has only just come into full effect, as it provided for a transitional period during which member States would change their existing

1 Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Switzerland and Albania (both non-EU) also adhere to the Directive’s protocols.

71

monitoring and notification procedures to comply with the new requirements, and the Directive also required four years’ worth of monitoring data gained under the new protocols before the new classifications could be applied. It should be noted that the Directive post- dates the recreational guidelines used in New Zealand. The Directive establishes four categories to be applied to designated bathing sites. (It should be noted that member States have to actually apply to have any particular site registered as a designated bathing site. The criteria are not to be applied universally). The four categories are described further in the attached file note. The categories are based on calculations using a minimum data set of 4 samples per season, collected over at least 4 years; the dataset is to exclude any results that might be considered to represent a short-term pollution event (such as a rainstorm). The 90th%ile or 95th%ile is then taken from the dataset to determine the appropriate category for the site. Using percentiles in this way effectively means that the sites are assigned into a category on the basis of worst-case results. A parallel conceptual approach is applied in the NOF. A dataset of results is compiled over an extended period (three years as a starting point), and the worst results from the dataset are extracted to determine whether the site is to be deemed as acceptable or unacceptable for bathing purposes. Each individual sample result is evaluated according to the 2003 Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines as to whether the site is suitable for swimming at the time of sampling. However, the NOF is intended to express whether a site is formally judged suitable for swimming over the long term. So, for example, a site could have a single exceedance at the start of a season; every subsequent sample could remain within the recreational guidelines for the rest of the season and throughout the next season; yet because of the one non-complying result according to the 2003 Guidelines, the site must be categorised as ‘unacceptable for bathing’ according to the NOF. Likewise, two poor individual results close together would render the site ‘unacceptable’ for not only the rest of the season but also the following two bathing seasons. By contrast, the European Commission Directive stipulates that results that represent short-term episodes rather than the long-term state of a site should not be taken into account in the classification process. There is a further and even greater point of difference between New Zealand and Europe, despite the similarity of philosophical approach. This difference lies in the numerical criteria applied. In New Zealand, a 95th%ile result in a dataset of 545 E.coli per 100 mls, means the site is to be deemed ‘unacceptable for bathing’. In Europe, that same result would mean the site just misses out on being deemed ‘excellent’ for bathing, and would instead sit at the top of the ‘good’ for bathing category. Further, were the 95th%ile result twice as bad- 1100 E. coli per 100 mls- in Europe it would still be considered to be comfortably of ‘sufficient’ quality to allow bathing. By way of further illustration, Members can note that out of the 17 fresh water bathing sites that the Council routinely monitors each season, 5 fall into the ‘A’ NOF category for primary (swimming) usage, 5 into the ‘B’ category, and 7 would be deemed ‘unacceptable for bathing’. Of these latter seven sites, 5 routinely meet the guidelines between 92-95% of the time, but because their 95th%ile results exceed the NOF criteria, they are classified as ‘unacceptable’ according to the NOF. That is, 41% of the freshwater bathing sites in Taranaki would have to be deemed unsuitable for swimming. However, should the European Commission Directive be applied instead in Taranaki, 5 of these 7 would in fact meet the criteria for swimmability. The percentage of sites regionwide that are ‘unacceptable’ would immediately drop from 41% to 12%.

72

The same sort of variations apply elsewhere around the country. Nationwide, currently 44% of designated freshwater bathing sites are deemed unsuitable for swimming according to NOF; however under the EC guidelines, this figure drops by two-thirds, to just 14%. Those advocating that ‘all New Zealand rivers should be swimmable’ must address questions of whether they are referring to bathing sites sampled under conditions conducive to bathing, or to bathing sites sampled regardless of weather conditions and usage at the time, or to having all rivers sampled throughout every bathing season, or to samples collected everywhere and at all times regardless of factors such as physical accessibility, suitability for recreational use, safety of users, weather and climate, and typical versus worst-case results. And in terms of the review of criteria set out above, they will clearly need to consider what they mean by ‘swimmable’ water quality.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

Financial considerations—LTP/Annual plan This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the Council’s adopted Long-Term Plan and estimates. Any financial information included in this memorandum has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice. Policy considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Biosecurity Act 1993.

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

Attachment Document 1666072: File notes on a comparison between the NOF standard, MfE microbiological guideline, and EC freshwater bathing regulation.

Notes on comparison between NOF standard, MfE microbiological guideline, and EC freshwater bathing regulation: bathing (full immersion) criteria and gradings

Prepared by Gary Bedford Director-Environment Quality Taranaki Regional Council

The European Commission Bathing Water Directive was revised and updated in 2006. However, the Directive provide for an extended progressive implementation programme, so that member states could adjust their monitoring regimes from existing programmes. The Directive’s classification protocols also require four years’ worth of monitoring data before a suitability for bathing classification can be calculated. Thus, the classifications have been applied by member states only from 2015. It is to be reviewed in 2020.

Excerpts from various publications are provided below for further information.

The table on the next page allows a direct comparison between the microbiological guidelines used in New Zealand each bathing season (‘MfE/MoH Microbiological guidelines’), the classification of waters in terms of their overall suitability for bathing (immersion) use in New Zealand as set out in the National Objectives Framework (‘NOF classifications’), and the classification of waters in terms of their overall suitability for bathing (immersion) use as set out in the EC Bathing Water Directive (‘European Commission classifications’). 73

(From DEFRA, UK) The European Union's revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) came into force in March 2006 and replaces the current Bathing Water Directive (76/1160/EEC).

The overall objective of the revised directive is the protection of public health, but it also offers an opportunity to improve management practices at bathing waters and to standardise the information offered to bathers across Europe.

The directive introduces a new classification system with more stringent water quality standards and puts an emphasis on providing information to the public.

From November 2015, bathing waters will be classed as either excellent, good, sufficient or poor. The water quality standards for the new classifications are much higher than those of the original bathing waters directive. Bathing Water Directive

1666072 Comparison between NPSFW NOF, MfE microbiological guidelines, and EC Bathing Water Directive, for immersion (bathing) criteria

NOF classifications MfE/MoH Microbiological guidelines European Commission classifications Attribute E.coli/100 ml Sampling Category E.coli/100 Sampling Statistic Classification E.coli/100 Sampling state Statistic ml ml Statistic* <260 th A 95 percentile Acceptable ≤260 Weekly test Excellent- Acceptable acceptable for <500 95th percentile for bathing >260 ≤ 540 th B 95 percentile Alert 261-550 Weekly test bathing

Unacceptable for bathing Acceptable for Good- C >540 ≤ 1000 Annual median th secondary use acceptable for <1000 95 percentile bathing Action- Unacceptable >550 Weekly test Unacceptable for bathing 90th percentile2 <900 for any Sufficient- D >1000 Annual median recreational acceptable for (Estimated

use bathing 2 equivalent 74 (<1300) th 2 95 %ile) 90th percentile2 >900 Poor-

Unacceptable 2 (Estimated (>1300) for bathing equivalent th 2 95 %ile) * EC stipulate that sampling data is to exclude any result that may have arisen from a short-term and intermittent pollution event- that is, each sample is to be representative of overall general condition and is not to be included if it captures any event that might affect water quality for less than 72 hours at a time. This stipulation is relevant to the discussion in New Zealand as to whether bathing waters should be sampled only under weather and water conditions that are suitable for bathing (‘dry weather sampling’), or alternatively sampled on a strict schedule regardless of prevailing water and weather conditions. See extra commentary below from SEPA.

2 an approximate adjustment factor for converting from a criterion based on the 90th%ile figure to an equivalent water quality criterion based on the 95th%ile figure has been calculated from long term Council datasets across all sites, to derive an estimated equivalent 95th%ile criterion to the stipulated 90th%ile criteria for the EC ‘sufficient’ and ‘poor’ classifications, and thus show clearly the progressive nature of the criteria in use in Europe.

NOF sampling statistics: based on 30 samples over three years

MfE guidelines sampling statistics: Individual weekly samples during the bathing season (i.e. 20 weeks)

1666072 Comparison between NPSFW NOF, MfE microbiological guidelines, and EC Bathing Water Directive, for immersion (bathing) criteria

European Commission sampling statistics: based on a minimum of 4 samples per bathing season (intervals between each sample to be less than one month), over 4 years. Data capturing bacteriological levels from short-term pollution events is to be excluded from datasets used for calculating categories.

************************************************************************************

(From http://apps.sepa.org.uk/bathingwaters/SamplingResults.aspx )

Sampling and results

Water quality samples are taken at each bathing water throughout the bathing season, from 1 June to 15 September. A pre-season sample is taken during the last fortnight in May.

We will report the first new EU water quality classifications at the end of the 2015 season.

Overview

Most bathing waters will be sampled 18 times during the season. Some geographically remote sites will be sampled 10 times. Sites which have consistently 75 demonstrated excellent water quality are sampled five times. This reduction in water quality sampling allows more resource to be put into the investigative work required to eliminate or minimise the sources of pollution which still have an intermittent adverse effect on several designated bathing waters.

The revised Bathing Water Directive

The revised Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC) came into force on 24 March 2006 and was translated into Scottish law by The Bathing Waters (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

The Directive introduces a new classification system with more stringent water quality standards and puts an emphasis on providing information to the public. We will first report water quality classifications under the revised directive in 2015; other parts of the directive are already in place.

1666072 Comparison between NPSFW NOF, MfE microbiological guidelines, and EC Bathing Water Directive, for immersion (bathing) criteria

2011 2012 2015

• Switch to new parameters

• Publication of bathing water profiles • Summary information to be posted at beach locations • Publication of monitoring calendar • Report water quality standards against • Implementation of signage and the revised Bathing Water Directive • Action, where required, on cyanobacterial (blue-green algae) blooms, discounting macroalgae (seaweed), marine phytoplankton and other waste • New abnormal situation rules to apply

What we measure 76 Changes were made in 2012 to the bacterial entities monitored. These arise from recommendations from the World Health Organization. In place of the previous coliform and faecal streptococci standards, the revised directive sets standards for Escherichia coli and intestinal enterococci. While slightly altering the microbiological analytical techniques necessary, the differences in the values obtained are considered to be minimal.

Sampling programme

Sampling schedules (the monitoring calendar) are set and fixed in advance of the bathing season as required by Regulations. At sites which have daily real time forecasting of bathing water quality and electronic beach message signage we may use the allowed five day sampling window to avoid sampling when the sign gives a poor water quality warning and we have actively advised against bathing. At all other sites we sample on the date in the monitoring calendar unless there is an unexpected operational reason e.g. vehicle breakdown.

Short term pollution

Our electronic signage network at 23 sites across Scotland provides real-time predictions of bathing water quality. These electronic signs enable us to remove (from the overall classification dataset) samples collected during short-term pollution events, when there is a public warning system in place to inform

1666072 Comparison between NPSFW NOF, MfE microbiological guidelines, and EC Bathing Water Directive, for immersion (bathing) criteria

prospective bathers of potentially poorer water quality. A separate closure sample must have been taken to demonstrate that the event has ended and management measures must be in place to prevent, reduce or eliminate the causes of the pollution. The Directive says that a maximum of 15% of the samples used to assess the classification of a bathing water can be disregarded from the assessment and, if necessary, replaced.

Abnormal situations

An abnormal situation is defined by the revised Bathing Water Directive as an event or combination of events impacting on bathing water quality at the location concerned and not expected to occur on average more than once every four years. During an abnormal situation the monitoring calendar can be suspended so that samples which assess compliance of the bathing water are not taken. This is because they are unrepresentative of the water quality of a bathing water. When an abnormal situation is in force, signs must be put up by the beach controller warning the public of the nature and expected duration of the pollution.

Bacteriological analysis

Bacteriological analysis is carried out at our specialist microbiological laboratories in North Lanarkshire and Aberdeen. All of these laboratories operate to 77 United Kingdom Accreditation Service quality systems for their analytical work. We also participate in external inter-laboratory testing schemes such as those run by the Public Health Laboratory and Aquacheck. The inter-laboratory testing has demonstrated consistent high accuracy of our bacteriological test results

1666072 Comparison between NPSFW NOF, MfE microbiological guidelines, and EC Bathing Water Directive, for immersion (bathing) criteria

78

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee Subject: Potential benefits of introducing dung beetles to Taranaki

Item: 6

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1665696

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present information on the potential benefits of dung beetles in relation to promoting sustainable farming practices in Taranaki. Members’ expressed an interest in this matter at their last meeting.

Executive summary • Sheep and cattle have been brought to New Zealand without the associated dung beetles which have evolved to process their dung and avoid or mitigate associated adverse environmental effects. • The Dung Beetle Release Strategy Group was established in 2008 with the objective of importing and releasing dung beetles to assist with the removal of pastoral dung of agricultural livestock. • An application by the Strategy Group to release 11 species of dung beetles in New Zealand was approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in February 2011, and a project to import and breed these insects is now underway, funded largely by the MPI’s Sustainable Farming Fund. Landcare Research is providing science and technical support to this programme. • To date, four species of beetles have been released throughout Waikato, Manawatu, Wairarapa, Hawkes Bay and in the Helensville area. • A study by Landcare Research noted that the introduction of dung beetles would minimise sources connected to waterways by overland flow and would reduce total E.coli sources by approximately 35%. • Various farmers in the region have indicated a willingness to introduce beetles on their properties and participate in any trials or research. • Dung beetle packages range from $1,250 - $6,000.

79

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum Potential benefits of introducing dung beetles to Taranaki; 2. agrees to liaise with Federated Farmers to investigate trialling the introduction of dung beetles in Taranaki for environmental improvement purposes; and 3. provide, subject to suitable arrangements being secured, up to $10,000 from existing budgets, to support the introduction of the dung beetle to the region.

Background Pastoral farming with grazing animals is the predominant land use in Taranaki. Associated with that land use is the discharge of animal excreta onto land with associated faecal microorganisms, which can end up in waterways through overland flow during rainfall events. These microorganisms can affect human health and animal health if ingested and impact the instream values of waterways.

In Taranaki, and in other parts of New Zealand, there has been significant investment in recent times by the farming sector in adopting a suite of land use practices to mitigate the environmental effects of their activity on fresh water. This includes diversions of farm dairy effluent onto land and the exclusion of livestock from waterways by fencing.

Landcare Research has identified that the fencing of waterways, at a catchment level, would reduce total E. coli sources by approximately 35%. This is effectively what the Taranaki Regional Council and the farming community are now doing through the Riparian Management Programme. Construction of dairy effluent storage ponds to avoid high bypass flows in soils would also reduce total E. coli sources by approximately 25%.

However, the study identifies another mitigation strategy, that has not yet been tried in Taranaki, involving the introduction of dung beetles, that could also minimise total E. coli sources to water by approximately 35%. Set out below is further information on dung beetles.

Benefits of dung beetle introduction Dung beetles rapidly remove and process dung and have proven on-farm benefits. They do this by forming small dung balls and rolling them into their burrows. However, when large grazing animals were introduced to New Zealand the agents that evolved in their places of origin to process their dung were not brought with them. Dung beetles are currently used extensively by overseas farmers (Australia and USA).

The introduction of dung beetles in Australia has resulted in many positive benefits, including the promotion of earthworms, increased soil carbon, increased pasture production, reduction of water pollution and improved control of pests, parasites, and pathogens.

In 2008, a group of New Zealand farmers and interested parties established a dung beetle release strategy group with the objective of importing and releasing pastoral dung beetles. An application by the group to release 11 species was approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in February 2011. In 2013, the first dung beetles were introduced to New Zealand, and a project to import and breed the insects is now underway. 80

This project is largely funded by the MPI’s Sustainable Farming Fund with Landcare Research providing science and technical support to this programme.

The group’s targets are innovative and its aim is to provide beetles to 30% of New Zealand’s livestock farmers.

The rapid removal and processing of dung by the beetles can result in a suite of environmental and animal health benefits.

Pastoral farming is the predominant land use in Taranaki. While grazing is healthy for animals, in contrast to feedlots, faecal microorganisms in the animals dung can be transported to waterways. Hence, the microbiological water quality of streams flowing through agricultural landscapes is reduced. High levels of faecal microorganisms can have serious effects on both human and stock health, if water is used for drinking, or contact recreation. Beetle tunnelling leads to increased aeration of the soil allowing water to better penetrate land. Tunnelling and dung burial results in increased grass root growth and biological activity in soils under and adjacent to dung pats. Dung beetle activity therefore leads to reduced run-off of rainfall and better retention of dung and urine in the soil. This in turn results in reduced microbial contamination in run-off, less leachate and reduced eutrophication. Research trials have shown that dung burial by beetles increases pasture growth by around 30% and responses persisted for over 2 years after dung burial.

Dung beetle activity further reduces reinfection of livestock by parasitic worms. This is achieved by dung beetles directly or indirectly killing the eggs and young larvae of the parasitic worms. Dung is aerated which desiccates nematode eggs which are damaged or destroyed by physical abrasion during dung manipulation by beetles.

Faster burial of dung reduces incidence of nuisance flies. Blowflies associated with sheep flystrike do not breed in animal waste but females use it as a nutrient resource for maturing eggs. In New Zealand, other nuisance flies such as biting stable flies, house flies and flesh flies are known to breed in livestock dung. When dung burrowing beetles and dung breeding flies compete in dung, the beetles win. Survivorship of fly eggs and larvae is significantly reduced by rapid conversion of the dung resource and mechanical damage during dung manipulation by the beetles. Many laboratory and field experiments confirm significant reductions in the number of dung breeding pest flies because of dung beetles.

Economic benefits from dung beetle activity are expected to arise from enhanced forage palatability, nutrient recycling and a reduction in pasture pests (e.g. nuisance flies and livestock parasites). New Zealand specific data is lacking, but conservative estimates from the United States suggest that by burying cattle dung alone, dung beetles are worth approximately US$380 million annually to the US economy (Losey JE, Vaughan M. (2006)).

Of note, ERMA is satisfied that there is little chance that dung beetles becoming a pest in New Zealand as they eat only dung and die out if their food supply is removed.

Where to from here Dung beetle packages for farms range from $1250 - $6000 and are available from Dung Beetle Innovations Limited (www.dungbeetle innovations.com). Officers recommend liaising with the faming sector to investigate trialling the introduction of dung beetles on a small number of farms to promote their on-farm benefits in Taranaki. Various farmers in the region have 81

already indicated a willingness to participate in a trial to introduce beetles on their properties. Field trials could be undertaken at the regions demonstration farms. If successful there is the possibility of establishing a dung beetle breeding facility in the region. Why Fund The Council’s approach has been for industry to deal with its own waste and develop appropriate solutions. However, the Council has previously contributed to research and field trials of new approaches that could bring environmental improvements. The introduction and trailing of the dung beetle in Taranaki, with appropriate monitoring and reporting, would fit within this ambit. Hence, subject to suitable arrangements being secured, the recommendation to provide up to $10,000 funding from existing budgets, to support the introduction of the dung beetle to the region.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

Appendices/Attachments Document 1670748: Dung Beetle Innovations

82 6 - 10 - beetles beetles

.

on introduced

t the case with o n

examples

pest pest

g beetle species and continues which was

, . The introduction of dung beetles is FAQs

How How long will it become established? take for dung beetles to New Zealand’s economy is organisms founded (cows, sheep, grasses, clover, etc.). pine In this case trees, dung beetles did not come to NZ at the same time as the farm animals to bury their dung as they do in other countries. Australia has successfully introduced over 25 dun to introduce more based on sound ecological science and controlled by stringent regulations possums, rabbitsand other When properly introduced onto a farm, dung will reach their natural carrying capacity within years. 9 Moderate numbers will years. You be should see achieved first in signs years. of 4 activity within 3 away? fly beetles dung just Won’t When released onto fresh burrow dung, dung down beetles as will beetles quickly are no respecters as of property possible. boundaries, so long as While there is a good dung supply of fresh dung close by, they have no reason to leave. Biologically they want to travel the shortest distance possible to the next dung pile. They will follow the scent of dung as animals are rotationally grazed. Will dung beetles become possums, pests rabbits just and like ideas”? many other “good

The Solution Solution The By By introducing pastoral dung beetles, we the have opportunity to rapidly and effectively remove dung areas from of productive large land. The beetles turn a extremely valuable waste asset for farmers community. whole the and problem into an

are

ha

a day is

ha

950 50-

New Zealand?

The Solution The Solution

What is What Hindering

At At any one time in New Zealand 5% of all grazing farmland is covered in dung. Roughly 600,000 Sheep Sheep and cattle have been brought to New associated dung beetles which have Zealand dung. their process to evolved without the wasted due to cattle dung Between alone. 7 covered by dung, which accumulates accumulates which dung, by covered and sits around months from before weeks it Additionally, to breaks forage down. around the dung in an area is 5 times the of size the dung pat it because is avoided livestock. grazing to repugnant

Sustainable Sustainable Farming in 83

500 for

–

500 beetles. 500 250 beetles. beetles. 250

– –

in 4 colonies of 200 1 he he exact species will be selected in Packages Packages Dung Beetle Beetle Dung

Whole Farm Package Farm Whole +GST $6,000 4 species beetles each. 4 species will provide year. the of most for coverage Farm Starter Package Starter Farm +GST $2,000 200 species. 1 Small Block Package Block Small +GST $1,250 100 species. 1 [email protected]

Some areas do not yet have 4 suitable species.

more information. more www.dungbeetleinnovations.com 1. 2. 3. Farms will only be available. invoiced T as species become DBI’s entomologist. with consultation Contact Dr Shaun Forgie on 021 040 8685 or 1

2 by soil soil

. in parasitic parasitic kg kg is lost is produced

22 Eggs and larvae .

nitrogen nitrogen and

increases $10 perhead $10

of livestock by kg kg of nitrogen

kg kg of nitrogen per head equates 27

, reducing the input cost for such . Dung is aerated which 10 such as

increases increases pasture growth 30% and responses for persisted over The Numbers The annually savings of over over of savings annually nutrients phosphorus fertilisers. An estimated annually per animal, of which (through leaching and volatilisation) present*. not are beetles if dung Saving just nematodes desiccates nematode eggs are damaged or destroyed by physical abrasion duringmanipulation dung beetles. by Doube* BM, (2008), MLA. http://dungbeetle.org.nz/benefits/ around around burial*. dung after years There are also significant to Reduced infection Research Research trials have shown that dung burial by beetles

going maintenance time time maintenance going

-

Reduced nutrient runoff nutrient Reduced infiltration costs or Improved soil fertility Improved soil structure Improved soil biology Improved area grazing available Increased quality water Improved rainfall/irrigation Improved species pest Reduced soil carbon Sequestered No on

Increased pasture productivity pasture Increased

Benefits Key

• Dung burial by dung beetles results in:dungDung beetlesresults burial by •

• • • • • • • • •

84

Agenda Memorandum

Date 3 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: State of the Environment Monitoring of Lake Rotorangi water quality and biological programme Annual Report 2014-2015

Item: 7

Approved by: G K Bedford, Director-Environment Quality

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1659336

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present a report prepared by staff, on the state of Lake Rotorangi as determined in the 2014-2015 programme monitoring the state of the lake, and trends in that quality since monitoring first began in 1984. The Executive Summary of the report ‘State of the Environment Monitoring of Lake Rotorangi water quality and biological programme Annual report 2014-2015, Technical report 2015-32’ is attached to this memorandum, and the full report is available upon request and on the Council’s website. Lake Rotorangi, the region’s largest, is monitored for both consent compliance and for state of the environment monitoring purposes, through a programme financed in part by TrustPower, the consent holder for the Patea Hydroelectric Scheme.

Executive summary The Council’s ‘Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki’ (October 2001) states as two of its objectives for the regional community, ‘to maintain and enhance the quality of the surface water resources of Taranaki by avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of contaminants discharged to land and water from point-sources.... and diffuse sources’ (Objectives 6.2.1 and 6.3.1). In doing so, the Council and community seek to provide for the values associated with surface water, and to ensure the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems (Environmental Results Anticipated ER1).

In order to ascertain the successful adoption and application or otherwise of the Council’s policies and methods of implementation, the Council conducts ‘state of the environment’ (SEM) monitoring to obtain up to date robust information for parameters that characterise the region’s environment and resources. The results and findings of the SEM programme for the region’s freshwater systems can be interrogated to determine trends and changes in

85

trends in the quality of the region’s freshwater resources, alongside the information on the current ‘state’ of the region’s physicochemical parameters that SEM generates.

The lake’s quality is determined each year, through four water quality monitoring surveys and through phytoplankton surveys (conducted simultaneously with the water quality surveys) and a benthic invertebrate survey. A three-yearly macrophyte (aquatic weeds) survey conducted in autumn 2015 is also reported.

Of note, the last survey for the year was conducted following the June 2015 flooding, and the character of the lake at the time was significantly changed by this event.

Based on these surveys and studies, the lake’s condition continues to be classified as mesotrophic, with a very slow and insignificant rate of increase in trophic level. If the trend continues, then in the very long term future the lake might become more eutrophic ie mildly nutrient enriched, but this is considered unlikely given the lake displays only moderate levels of chlorophyll. Phytoplankton densities continue to be low, restricted by lack of nutrients and by freshes (which shorten residence times and flush existing communities). Phytoplankton was non-existent after the June 2015 floods.

It can be noted that the Council has released its ‘omnibus’ ‘state of the environment’ report in 2015. The report being presented today updates the data presented therein. The report’s recommendation is that the programme continues as currently designed, including the incorporation of elements that are implemented on an occasional basis.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives this memorandum noting the preparation of a report into the state of the water quality and biological programme of Lake Rotorangi as determined in monitoring during 2014-2015 2. notes the findings of the SEM programme 3. adopts the specific recommendation therein.

Background This Committee has been regularly informed of the findings that emerge from the Council’s various freshwater ‘state of the environment’ monitoring programmes. These programmes are important as indicators of the effectiveness of the Council’s and community’s interventions and resource management initiatives addressing freshwater quality in the region. Members will be aware that there is a high level of interest nationally in the state and management of the country’s fresh water resources.

The Council’s ‘Regional Freshwater Plan for Taranaki’ deals with lake and river water quality jointly as ‘surface water’ quality. The three objectives most relevant are as follows:

‘Objective 6.1.1: To promote the sustainable management of the surface waters of Taranaki while avoiding, remedying or mitigating any actual or potential adverse effects from the taking, use, damming or diversion of surface water;

86

Objective 6.2.1: To maintain and enhance the quality of the surface water resources of Taranaki by avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of contaminants discharged to land and water from point sources;

Objective 6.3.1: To maintain and enhance the quality of the surface water resources of Taranaki by avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of contaminants discharged to land and water from diffuse sources.’

Under ‘levels of service’ in the Resource Management section within the Council’s 2013/2014 Annual Plan, item 3 (‘maintenance and enhancement of overall water quality in our rivers and lakes, groundwater and coastal waters’) includes:-

Measure: physicochemical and biological parameters for quality of Lake Rotorangi

Target (years 1-10): the trophic state (an indication of the ecological condition as affected by nutrient enrichment) of Lake Rotorangi to remain as it was in 1988 (mesotrophic/mildly eutrophic, or the middle category of trophic states).

Baseline: the current life-supporting capacity of the lake is stable (as are 48% of monitored lakes nation-wide) and relatively healthy (better than almost 2/3 of lakes monitored nationally.). State of lake shown to continue to be mesotrophic/mildly eutrophic.

Lake Rotorangi is an artificial lake (as are four of the region’s other significant lakes- Mangamahoe, Ratapiko, Opunake, and Rotomanu), and the Council’s management of its quality is in part through the conditions imposed within consents held by TrustPower. Because of their use for generation purposes, most of these lakes tend to have a relatively high through-flow and are therefore less susceptible to potential water quality issue than might otherwise be the case.

The Committee has previously received information on the state of New Zealand’s lakes, together with information about how Lake Rotorangi compares (April 2007). For comparative purposes (to the extent that comparisons are meaningful for lakes of varying hydrological, geological, and meteorological function and character), that data is re- produced below.

Of the 134 lakes assessed for trophic status in 2007, their categorisation is shown in the table below, along with the state of Lake Rotorangi.

More impacted <- - - - - >more pristine State Hyper- Super- Eutrophic Meso- Oligo- Micro- trophic trophic trophic trophic trophic Taranaki Yes (L. Rotorangi) All NZ 18 (13%) 13 (10%) 44 (33%) 21 (16%) 25 (19%) 13 (10%)

Discussion One of the Council’s ‘State of the Environment’ monitoring programmes measures the ecological and water quality state of Lake Rotorangi, as an example of the state of lakes in the region. Monitoring of the lake has been undertaken since its construction in 1984, with reporting to the Council since 1988. Reporting was initially by way of consent compliance

87

reporting, up until 2010-2011, with subsequent lake monitoring being reported as a state of the environment annual report, partially financed by TrustPower.

Staff have now reported the data for the 2014-2015 year, including an analysis of trends in the trophic state of the lake over the period 1984-2015.

The autumn and winter surveys of the lake found it to be markedly affected by several recent freshes. As is typical for the lake, summer and autumn surveys found evidence of stratification (layers of distinct water quality forming within the lake with low oxygen at depth); however, there was a greater degree of lake overturn present by wintertime, due to the immediately preceding floods which promoted turbulent mixing within the lake. This process re-oxygenates the deeper parts of the lake, and also brings minor amounts of phosphorus solubilised from sediment under anaerobic conditions to the surface, potentially promoting algal growth in spring. Despite mild nutrient enrichment in the lake overall, phytoplankton levels remained low, most likely due to some restrictions upon nutrient availability and to freshes flushing the lake from time to time.

The lake biologically continues to exhibit mesotrophic conditions, bordering on eutrophic, rather than having become eutrophic as was originally predicted during the process associated with granting the original water rights (consents), in spite of high turbidity (due to river silt) and associated elevated nutrients (which are primarily present in total, but not in dissolved, forms).

As has also been the case in previous years, there were no phytoplankton blooms in the lake during the period under review. Phytoplankton community composition tends to reflect environmental conditions prevailing at the time of each survey, rather than showing any long-term trends. Any proliferation tends to be opportunistic and short-lived.

The highly invasive weed hornwort was found in a lake survey in April 2012. It was found again in the survey of macrophyte (lake weeds) undertaken in autumn 2015. While hornwort is considered unlikely to significantly adversely affect the hydroelectric power scheme or the lake’s ecology, its presence raises the risk of transfer to other lakes where it could pose a greater threat. The Council is considering further investigations. Signs are up along the lake reminding users of their responsibilities to prevent transfer. Oxygen weed (Egeria densa) is the dominant weed within the lake.

Macroinvertebrate surveys indicate very sparse populations within the lake sediments, which is consistent with oxygen depletion. This component of the monitoring programmes is being reduced in frequency.

The report concludes by recommending:-

That the Lake Rotorangi physicochemical and biological water quality monitoring programme continue on an annual basis as a component of the TRC State of the Environment Monitoring programme, with every third year of the programme also undertaken in conjunction with the Patea Hydro Electric Power Scheme- aquatic monitoring plan (next in 2017-2018), and that the requisite macrophyte and benthic macroinvertebrate surveys be components of the 2017-2018 programme.

Decision-making considerations

88

Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

Attachment Document 1562842 (excerpt): State of the Environment Monitoring of Lake Rotorangi Water Quality and Biological Programme Annual Report 2014-2015, Technical Report 2015-32 (Executive Summary and Recommendations).

89

Executive summary

Lake Rotorangi was formed in May 1984 by the construction of an earth fill dam on the Patea River. During the process of obtaining planning consents, it was recognised that although a regionally significant recreational resource would be formed, considerable environmental impacts might also occur. Consequently a comprehensive monitoring programme was developed for the lake, and this report presents the results of the twenty-fifth year of this monitoring.

Four water quality sampling surveys were performed at two sites during the 2014-2015 period. The first of the two sites surveyed is located in the mid reaches of the lake, while the second site is located nearer to the dam. It should be noted that the fourth survey, undertaken in June 2015, followed severe flooding in the catchment. This markedly impacted on aspects of water clarity along the lake and contributed to more complete de-stratification (mixing) of the water column at this time.

Changes in thermal stratification during the year were largely similar to that typically recorded in previous surveys of this reservoir-type lake. Thermal stratification was beginning to form at both sites during the spring survey, and was well developed during the late summer - autumn at the mid and lower lake sites, with dissolved oxygen depletion measured in the lower waters of the hypolimnion at both sites. The winter survey recorded no oxygen depletion at the mid site in winter, while only minimal depletion was noted at the lower lake site at this time. This is an a-typical result, and was caused by the significant flooding that preceded this survey. This resulted in lake overturn not being quite complete at the lower lake site by the time of the winter survey although water temperatures were uniform throughout the water column. Overturn was apparent at the mid lake site in winter.

During the monitoring year phytoplankton richnesses (diversity) varied relatively widely from no taxa (following extensive winter flooding) to historical maximum richnesses at both sites (14 to 16 taxa) during the very dry summer-autumn period. These were coincident with very low to moderate chlorophyll-a levels. The main limiting factors for communities within the lake probably continue to be plant nutrient availability and frequency of river freshes. A very sparse macroinvertebrate fauna has been found amongst the fine sediments of the deeper lake sites where only those taxa able to tolerate lengthy periods of very low dissolved oxygen levels have been recorded. This component of the programme has been reduced in frequency for future monitoring purposes.

An autumn 2015 macrophyte survey identified the oxygen weed Egeria densa as the dominant macrophyte throughout the majority of the lake. Only two other species were recorded as dominant in particular areas, being Lagarosiphon major and Ceratophyllum demersum (hornwort). This is the second record of hornwort in Lake Rotorangi and its distribution had increased markedly since its first record in early 2012. It is expected that hornwort will eventually become dominant, out-competing E. densa and L. major. While this is not expected to cause significant impacts on the ecology of Lake Rotorangi or on the hydroelectric scheme, there is now greater potential for it to spread to nearby lakes, where such impacts could be much more severe e.g. Lake Rotokare. The next macrophyte survey of Lake Rotorangi is due to be performed in the 2017-2018 period.

Lake condition, in terms of lake productivity, continued to be within the category of mesotrophic to possibly mildly eutrophic (mildly nutrient enriched). However, taking into account the influence of suspended sediment in this reservoir, and the moderately low

90

chlorophyll levels, the classification is more appropriately mesotrophic. Previous trending of this water quality data over time found a very slow rate of increase in trophic level. An update of the trend report (for the period 1990-2014) has confirmed this very slow, insignificant rate of increase in trophic level. This also confirmed that the lake would be classified as mesotrophic in terms of its biological condition.

The monitoring programme will continue in its present format for state of the environment reporting purposes with regular (3-yearly) additional biological components (e.g. macrophyte survey) for consent compliance purposes. This report also includes recommendations for the 2015-2016 monitoring year.

Recommendation

The following recommendation is based on the results of the 2014-2015 water quality and biological monitoring programme and the contractual requirements of the recently renewed consents held by Trustpower for the Patea Hydro Electric Power Scheme on Lake Rotorangi:

1. THAT the Lake Rotorangi physicochemical and biological water quality monitoring programme continue on an annual basis as a component of the Council’s state of the environment monitoring programme, with every third year of the programme also undertaken in conjunction with the Patea Hydro Electric Power Scheme - aquatic monitoring plan (next in 2017-2018), and that the requisite macrophyte and benthic macroinvertebrate surveys be components of the 2017-2018 programme.

91

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Item: 8

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1665004

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present the report Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance (the Report) and to introduce Dr Peter McComb (MetOcean Solutions Ltd) who was commissioned by Council to prepare this report and will present his findings to the Committee.

The Report contributes to the review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki and, in particular, will inform regional policy and rules around the protection of nationally and regionally significant surf breaks.

Executive summary As part of Council’s review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki (Coastal Plan), Dr Peter McComb was commissioned to provide functional characterisation of the four nationally significant surf breaks and identify the types of activities that may, directly or indirectly, have an impact on them.

This work was been undertaken to ensure that the revised Coastal Plan gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and Council’s Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki (RPS) as required by the Resource Management Act 1991. Both of these policy statements contain strong policies requiring the protection of surf breaks.

A key finding of the Report is that it is not considered appropriate to prescribe magnitude thresholds or identify areas of influence, within rules, to indicate when activities are likely to have an adverse effect on a surf break. The impacts of different coastal activities on a surf break will depend upon the type, scale, location and any measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate impacts of that activity. This requires each activity to be considered on a case-by- case basis.

92

The Report states however, that it is possible to identify which types of activities may result in an adverse affect on surf breaks. These activities are grouped as general (those that would affect all surf breaks) and those specific to one or more of the four nationally significant surf breaks.

The Report recommends that consent applications potentially impacting on nationally or regionally significant surf breaks be considered on a case by case basis. As part of that process information must be provided to determine when an activity could possibly result in an adverse affect on a significant surf break. Further investigation could then be undertaken, where necessary, to define the magnitude of any adverse affect.

To further inform the review of the Coastal Plan, the Report recommends that a workshop be undertaken with interested parties to confirm the location and identify the unique aspects of all of the 81 regionally significant surf breaks.

Also recommended in the report are a number of projects which could be undertaken over time, to add to and improve the bathymetry data , which is currently available for the coast, for coastal management purposes.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the report Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance 2. notes Dr Peter McCombs presentation 3. notes that the findings of the consultants report will be used to inform the review of the Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki 4. notes that a workshop will be undertaken to confirm the location and identify the unique aspects of all of the 81 regionally significant surf breaks.

Background The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) requires that Council’s Coastal Plan gives effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) and Council’s Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki (RPS). Both of these policy statements were adopted in 2010, subsequent to our current Coastal Plan being finalised in 1997, and contain strong policies requiring the protection of surf breaks as outlined below.

New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 “Policy 16 Surf breaks of national significance Protect the surf breaks of national significance for surfing listed in Schedule 1, by: a) ensuring that activities in the coastal environment do not adversely affect the surf breaks; and b) avoiding adverse effects of other activities on access to, and use and enjoyment of the surf breaks.”

The NZCPS identifies four nationally significant surf breaks in Taranaki, these are: • Waiwhakaiho; • Stent Road; • Backdoor Stent; and • Farmhouse Stent.

93

Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki Jan 2010 “CNC POLICY 4 Areas in the coastal environment of importance to the region will be identified and priority given to protection of the natural character, ecological and amenity values of such areas from any adverse effects arising from inappropriate subdivision, use and development. In the assessment of areas of importance, matters to be considered will include:

(d) scenic sites and recreational sites of outstanding or regional or national significance:”

Eighty-one regionally significant surf breaks have been mapped as high quality or high value surf breaks in the RPS (and include the four nationally significant surf breaks).

The Report Council commissioned Dr Peter McComb (MetOcean Solutions Ltd) to provide functional characterisation of the four nationally significant surf breaks and identify the types of activities that may, directly or indirectly, have an impact on them. The information provided in his report, Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance (the Report), will inform the policy and rules to be included in the revised Coastal Plan to ensure that the nationally significant surf breaks are protected.

The Report summarises the main types of surf breaks and the accepted surfing wave parameters in Section 2. It then discusses the functional aspects of the three nationally significant Stent Road surf breaks in Section 3 and includes a detailed analysis of the nationally significant Waiwakaiho surf break, in Section 4.

Section 5 of the Report discusses the six components to surf breaks that can be used to inform guidelines for their protection. These are: • seabed morphology; • coastal structures and coastal processes; • surfer access; • wind; • wave energy attenuation and waste crest distortion; and • water quality.

Seabed morphology The Report concludes that it is not considered appropriate to prescribe a threshold in rules based on the magnitude of change in bathymetry or seabed shape as a guideline. A ‘buffer zone’ identified on a case by case basis, via the resource consent process, would be more effective.

The Report further suggests that a change to the seabed that has the potential to give rise to a change in the wave transformation process should require further assessment through the resource consent process. Potential activities which may give rise to a change in the wave transformation are outlined in Tables 1 - 5 below. Examples of activities that could affect seabed morphology include dredging and extraction of gravel and boulders from a river.

Coastal structures and coastal processes Changes to the coastal orientation due to erosion or accretion are identified in the Report as having the potential to affect surf quality as is wave reflection off coastal structures. It is suggested that wave reflection off structures may be of increasing importance particularly with rising sea levels. Structures such as groynes or hard protection structures to prevent coastal erosion could affect surf breaks.

94

Surfer access Access to the surf is identified in the Report as an important component to preservation of the use and enjoyment of the breaks. This is seen as primarily a district council responsibility, as access is usually from the landward side of the coastal marine area, but could also be addressed in the policy framework of the Coastal Plan.

Wind The Report notes that wind speed and direction governs surf quality at many (if not all) the breaks in Taranaki. In most cases a reduction in wind speed would be considered to have a beneficial effect on surf breaks however, sports that use wave and wind, such as kitesurfing and windsurfing, would value wind and view shelter or distortion as a negative effect.

Wave energy attenuation and wave crest distortion Attenuation of the incoming wave energy and distortion of the wave crests have been identified in the Report as potentially having a negative impact on surf quality. Structures such as production facilities and wave energy converters have the potential to attenuate wave energy and distort wave crests.

Water quality Water quality is identified in the Report as a key component to preservation of the use and enjoyment of the breaks. Deterioration of water quality could make it unsafe or inappropriate to surf. Sewage or river discharges near a surf break may affect water quality.

Overview of effects on key components of surf breaks The types of activities that could potentially affect the key components of all surf breaks are summarised in Table 1. Tables 2 –5 summarise the unique attributes of the four nationally significant surf breaks and identify activities which could potentially affect these.

Table 1: Examples of generic activities and effects on surf breaks. Key component Activity Affect

Seabed Changes to the seabed shape in the swell wave corridor to the surf break can affect Dredging and mining morphology the wave crest linearity as well as the wave height and direction.

Coastal structures and Sea wall, pipeline, groyne, Numerous types of effects can arise from a coastal structure. An expert interpretation is coastal processes breakwater and jetty recommended to assess each case.

Access to the surf is an important component to preservation of the use and enjoyment Surfer access Disruption of access of the breaks, including entry/exit locations for pedestrians and vehicular access to the coast. Modification of wind speed and direction may affect surf breaks. A reduction in wind Wind Windfarm speed could be a beneficial effect in many cases. However, sports as kitesurf and windsurf would generally view shelter or distortion as a negative effect. Floating or fixed production facilities and wave energy converters have the potential to Wave energy Offshore modify wave conditions. However the effects are strongly dependent on scale and attenuation and crest structures distortion proximity. Sewage Sewage discharge in the vicinity of a surf break may affect the water quality of the discharge area and make it unsafe or inappropriate to surf. Water quality River water quality can affect the water quality in the adjacent surf break and River discharges make it unsafe or inappropriate to surf. Changes to flow regimes and sediment supply can affect the shape of the river mouth and therefore the surf quality.

95

The following tables outline the aspects that are specific to each of the nationally significant surf breaks.

Table 2: Waiwakaiho

Table 3: Back of Stent

Table 4: Stent Road

96

Table 5: Farmhouse Stent

Key findings and recommendations The key finding of the Report, as highlighted in the discussion above, is that it is not considered appropriate to prescribe magnitude thresholds or identify areas of influence, within rules, to indicate when activities are likely to have an adverse effect on a surf break. The impacts of different coastal activities on a surf break will depend upon the type, scale, location and any measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate impacts of that activity. This requires each activity to be considered on a case by case basis. However, it is possible to identify which types of activities may result in an adverse affect on surf breaks and these are outlined in Table 5.1 – 5.5 of the Report for consideration in the consent process.

It is proposed in the Report that consent applications should be considered on a case by case basis using these tables to identify when an activity could possibly result in an adverse affect on a nationally significant surf break. Further investigation could then be undertaken, where necessary, to define the magnitude of any adverse affect.

The Report recommends, and Council staff agree, that a workshop be undertaken with interested parties to confirm the location and identify the unique aspects of all of the 81 regionally significant surf breaks. This work would further inform the review of the Coastal Plan by providing additional site-specific data for those surfbreaks (similar to the tables which have been developed for the nationally significant breaks). This additional information would also support the implementation of a revised Coastal Plan by better identifying those activities that could potentially have an adverse affect the regionally significant surf breaks.

Also recommended in the Report are a number of projects which could be undertaken over time to collect, add to and improve the bathymetry data which is currently available for the coast. Council staff support this recommendation and propose that further investigation is undertaken to determine how Council can support these projects for coastal management purposes.

97

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

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

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

Appendices/Attachments Document 1673867: Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance.

98

TARANAKI SURF BREAKS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Characterisation of the functional aspects of the Taranaki surf breaks and guidelines for their protection

Prepared for the Taranaki Regional Council

PO Box 441, New Plymouth, New Zealand T: 64-6-7585035 E: [email protected]

99 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

MetOcean Solutions Ltd: Report P0258-01 March 2016

Report status

Version Date Status Approved by RevA 30/11/2015 Draft McComb RevB 02/12/2015 Draft for internal review McComb RevC 09/01/2016 Updated draft for review McComb RevD 14/03/2016 Draft for client review McComb Rev0 22/03/2016 Approved for release McComb

It is the responsibility of the reader to verify the currency of the version number of this report.

The information, including the intellectual property, contained in this report is confidential and proprietary to MetOcean Solutions Ltd. It may be used by the persons to whom it is provided for the stated purpose for which it is provided, and must not be imparted to any third person without the prior written approval of MetOcean Solutions Ltd. MetOcean Solutions Ltd reserves all legal rights and remedies in relation to any infringement of its rights in respect of its confidential information.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd ii

100 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Background and scope ...... 1 1.2. Structure ...... 1 1.3. Wave climate summary ...... 1 2. Functional aspects ...... 7 2.1. Types of breaks ...... 7 2.2. Surfing wave parameters ...... 8 2.3. Swell corridors ...... 9 2.4. Wind ...... 9 2.5. Surfability ...... 9 3. Stent Road surf breaks ...... 11 4. Waiwakaiho surf break ...... 14 5. Discussion and recomendations ...... 21 5.1. Seabed morphology ...... 21 5.2. Coastal structures and coastal processes ...... 22 5.3. Surfer access ...... 22 5.4. Wind ...... 22 5.5. Wave energy attenuation and wave crest distortion ...... 23 5.6. Water quality ...... 23 5.7. Overview of effects on key components of surfbreaks ...... 23 5.8. Breaks of National Significance...... 23 5.9. Recommendations for regionally significant surf breaks ...... 29 5.10. Further recommendations to assist with monitoring and implementation ...... 29 6. References ...... 30

MetOcean Solutions Ltd iii

101 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and scope

The Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) has commissioned MetOcean Solutions Ltd (MSL) to produce a desktop study that will inform new regional policy and rules around the protection of surf breaks of national significance identified in Schedule 1 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) and surf breaks of regional significance identified in Appendix II of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). Within Taranaki, there are 81 surf breaks listed in the RPS, and four of these are surf breaks of national significance, which have protected status in law.

The scope of this report is to provide a functional characterisation of the four nationally significant surf breaks, and identify the types of activities that may directly or indirectly have an impact on them. The ultimate objective of the TRC is to develop guidelines relating to the magnitude and types of activities that could have a ‘more than minor’ effect on the nationally and regionally significant surf breaks in Taranaki.

1.2. Structure

The report is structured as follows. A summary of the main types of surf breaks and the accepted surfing wave parameters is provided in Section 2. In Section 3, the functional aspects of the Stent Road surf breaks are discussed from the limited amount of data available. Information about the seabed shape is readily available within New Plymouth area, allowing a more detailed analysis of the Waiwakaiho surf break to be undertaken (Section 4). The Waiwakaiho surf break is presented as a case study on potential direct and indirect effects that can influence surfing wave quality, along with the importance of quantifying the physical processes that give rise to the valued surf conditions. Recommendations are presented in Section 5, including the need for baseline data on the seabed shape and the appropriate consideration of temporal scales when making effects- based assessments. References cited are listed in the final Section 6.

For context, a summary of the wave conditions around the Taranaki volcanic apron is provided in the following subsection.

1.3. Wave climate summary

Taranaki is valued as a surf destination for several reasons. The hemispheric volcanic apron allows favourable wind conditions to be found under a range of synoptic weather patterns, and there is good exposure to the Sothern Ocean swells as well as waves generated in the Tasman Sea. This variety in coastal orientation is coupled with a nearshore marine environment that is interspersed with rocky reefs formed by volcanic debris and lahar agglomerates. The result is a province with a high concentration of quality surf breaks.

There is a gradient in wave energy (Figure 1.1), with the zone from Cape Egmont to Opunake receiving the largest wave heights, on average. From Stent Road northwards, average wave heights steadily decrease (Table 1.1) due to the progressive refraction of the dominant swell waves arriving from the Southern

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 1

102 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Ocean and the southern Tasman Sea. This refraction is evident in the wave roses around the Headland (Figure 1.2).

The incident wave climate in 50 m depth offshore of Cape Egmont is presented as the annual joint probability distributions of wave height, peak wave period and mean wave direction (Tables 1.2 and 1.3). The wave climate is dominated by long period (10-14 s) conditions from the southwest sector.

Table 1.1 Significant wave height statistics at 6 locations on the 20 m depth contour around the Taranaki Headland, derived from a 36 year hindcast. Note that p50, p70 etc is the percentile non-exceedance level).

Location Significant wave height (m) Site Longitude Latitude mean p50 p70 p80 p90 p95 p99 P1 174.22187 38.95647 1.48 1.31 1.68 1.96 2.42 2.87 3.94 P2 174.03660 39.04087 1.10 0.92 1.27 1.56 1.99 2.41 3.30 P3 173.86059 39.13357 1.66 1.51 1.88 2.15 2.63 3.07 4.17 P4 173.73481 39.27341 2.33 2.20 2.62 2.91 3.43 3.97 5.17 P5 173.78597 39.43432 2.26 2.13 2.55 2.83 3.35 3.86 5.04 P6 174.06566 39.61073 1.87 1.75 2.12 2.38 2.83 3.28 4.25

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 2

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Table 1.2 Joint probability distribution (parts per thousand) of significant wave height and mean wave direction at 50 m depth off Cape Egmont.

Wave direction (coming from) Hs (m) N NE E SE S SW W NW Total 0-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5-1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.1 1.5 0.2 9.1 1-1.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 71.2 10.0 1.7 85.3 1.5-2 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 193.2 27.3 7.1 234.4 2-2.5 6.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 196.4 39.7 12.4 258.7 2.5-3 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 125.6 42.4 12.3 189.1 3-3.5 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 59.3 34.6 9.2 110.5 3.5-4 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 23.7 24.3 6.6 58.7 4-4.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 8.9 15.0 3.5 29.3 4.5-5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.6 8.1 1.6 13.1 5-5.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.9 4.3 0.9 6.5 5.5-6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.0 0.3 2.7 103 6-6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.4 6.5-7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.7 7-7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 7.5-8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 8-8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 8.5-9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 23.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 19.3 689.4 211.5 56.1 1000.0

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 3

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Table 1.3 Joint probability distribution (parts per thousand) of significant wave height and peak wave period at 50 m depth off Cape Egmont.

Peak wave period (s) Hs (m) 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 Total 0-0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5-1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 1-1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 2.1 1.7 1.1 3.6 16.8 23.0 13.4 11.7 4.2 2.9 1.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 85.3 1.5-2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.2 7.4 5.4 7.8 26.2 60.3 48.2 41.7 13.8 8.1 4.3 2.9 0.9 1.0 234.4 2-2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 12.6 11.5 9.4 16.0 41.4 53.3 66.4 24.0 11.0 4.9 2.4 1.3 0.8 258.7 2.5-3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 8.6 15.1 11.0 10.0 18.0 29.1 50.9 26.0 12.2 4.6 1.9 0.7 0.4 189.1 3-3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 12.8 9.8 6.2 8.3 11.6 26.1 17.4 10.8 3.3 0.9 0.4 0.2 110.5 3.5-4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 5.0 9.4 4.9 4.1 4.4 9.6 8.7 8.4 3.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 58.7 4-4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 5.1 4.3 2.6 1.8 4.3 3.5 4.7 1.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 29.3 4.5-5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 2.8 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.7 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 13.1 5-5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 5.5-6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 6-6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 104 6.5-7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 7-7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 7.5-8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 8-8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 8.5-9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.1 0.2 2.8 11.8 33.2 51.7 58.3 91.1 163.6 165.9 214.8 101.1 62.1 25.2 10.9 4.2 2.9 1000.0

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 4

105 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Waiwakaiho

Stent

Figure 1.1 Map showing the average significant wave height from a 36-year hindcast. Locations for the statistics along the 20 m depth contour presented in Table 1.1 are also shown on this map.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 5

106 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Figure 1.2 Annual wave roses derived from a 36-year hindcast at sites on the 20 m depth contour.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 6

107 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

2. FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) defines a surf break as:

“A natural feature that is comprised of swell, currents, water levels, seabed morphology, and wind. The hydrodynamic character of the ocean (swell, currents and water levels) combines with seabed morphology and winds to give rise to a ‘surfable wave’. A surf break includes the ‘swell corridor’ through which the swell travels, and the morphology of the seabed of that wave corridor, through to the point where waves created by the swell dissipate and become non-surfable. ‘Swell corridor’ means the region offshore of a surf break where ocean swell travels and transforms to a ‘surfable wave’. ‘Surfable wave’ means a wave that can be caught and ridden by a surfer. Surfable waves have a wave breaking point that peels along the unbroken wave crest so that the surfer is propelled laterally along the wave crest.”

The formal definition of swell is ocean wave energy that is not being actively generated by wind. That is, swells are waves that have travelled beyond the area of active generation, whereas sea waves are being actively generated by wind. For surfing waves, it is typically the far-field storm activity that generates long period swells that produce the optimum wave conditions for surfing. However, swell waves can exhibit a range of frequencies, not just the long period conditions.

2.1. Types of breaks

Surf breaks were categorised by Mead et al. (1998) into four main types:

 Headland or point breaks – where wave refract around a topographic feature before breaking, usually over a rocky seabed or reef. Local examples are the Kumara Patch and Stent.

 Beach breaks – sandy or gravel beaches that may or may not have offshore features that modify the incoming waves to produce favourable surfing conditions. For example, Fitzroy is a beach break but the offshore bathymetry causes a well-defined nearshore wave height gradient and therefore zones of preferential wave peeling.

 River / estuary bars – topographical variability that can be conducive to a well-formed surf break, such as the Waitara Rivermouth.

 Reef breaks – stable features that provide consistent wave breaking characteristics. Most breaks in Taranaki are rocky reefs, which have relatively shallow gradients due to their cobble / boulder composition.

Surf breaks are often a combination of these categories, such as a headland and reef break like Stent. Beamsley and Black (2003) identified that while wave height reinforcement due to focussing by an offshore bathymetric feature plays a vital role in creating a surf break, the process of crest-snapping was equally important at many of the renowned breaks around the world. Crest-snapping can occur over a range of bathymetric features, and it is caused by the difference in wave speed over adjacent areas of seabed due a strong depth gradient. Linear wave crests become offset (or snapped) as a result, and this can produce exceptional surf, such as occurs at Pipeline on Ohau (Hawaii). Local New Zealand examples where crest-snapping governs wave quality include Matakana Island, The Pipe in

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 7

108 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Gisborne, and Aramoana Beach in Dunedin. However, negative effects can also arise from crest-snapping. In Taranaki, the offshore Waiwakaiho Reef distorts the linear wave crests by crest-snapping but only during long period swells (greater than 16 s) and on the low tide, thereby deteriorating the wave quality at the break point. 2.2. Surfing wave parameters

A detailed review of surfing wave parameters was made by Scarfe (2003), and the four most important parameters are described here:

 Breaking wave height. This is considered to be one of the most important parameters at a surfing break. Typically, the arrival of waves is modulated into groups (sets) and surfers seek to ride the largest waves in these groups. Accordingly, the average of the top 10 % of waves is the best statistic for description of the surfable waves, rather than the significant wave height, which is approximately the average of the highest third of the waves.

 Wave peel angle. This is the angle (from 0-90°) between the trail of broken white-water and the crest of the unbroken wave as it propagates shoreward. Low peel angles create fast surfing waves, while angles approaching 0° result in a closeout, whereby the wave face collapses and ends the ride. High peel angles create slow waves which are less challenging to surf. The wave peel rate describes how fast the wave breakpoint advances laterally along the wave crest, and this is closely related to the wave peel angle.

 Wave breaking intensity. The seabed gradient controls the wave breaker intensity, which is categorised into spilling, plunging, surging, or collapsing breakers. The best surfing waves are those with very steep (plunging) faces. Breaker intensity is also influenced by the wind conditions; increasing in offshore winds and decreasing in onshore and cross-shore conditions. Offshore wind conditions act to delay wave breaking, causing the wave to break in shallower water and thereby increasing the breaker intensity.

 Wave section length. Variations along the wave crest (i.e. due to unorganized swells, wave focusing and undulating bathymetry) can cause wave face to exhibit a varying character along the length of the ride. The section length describes the surf ride for specific wave height, peel angle and breaker intensities. At most surf spots, especially the point and reef breaks, a uniform and linear wave crest is most favourable as it facilitates a longer wave section length. However, short section lengths on beach breaks also produce quality surf conditions, and crest-snapping is a good example of this.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 8

109 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

2.3. Swell corridors

The NZCPS describes the swell corridor as being the region offshore of a surf break where ocean waves travel and transform to a ‘surfable wave’. This definition has no spatial constraint, and could be interpreted as extending thousands of kilometres away, as swell waves can and do travel considerable distances. However, in practical terms the propagation and transformation of waves over the continental shelf is most relevant, and in most cases the proximity to the surf break will be highly correlated to effects. The two most likely effects on swell corridors will be due to modification of the bathymetry and attenuation of the wave energy flux.

Ocean waves start to become influenced by the seabed when the water depth is approximately less than half the wavelength of the waves. Shoreward from here, water depth starts to govern the propagating wave speed, and wave refraction, shoaling and frictional attenuation all become important processes. Wavelength is a property of wave period, so the long period wave conditions favoured for surfing can be influenced by the bathymetry of the entire continental margin – out to around 200 m depth.

Changes to the seabed morphology within the swell corridor can have significant effects on the surf quality, particularly if the function components (Section 2.1) are altered. However, this is not the only possible effect. Attenuation of the wave energy flux or distortion of wave crests (e.g. full or partial crest-snapping) can be influential as well. Offshore structures such as floating or fixed production facilities and wave energy converters have the potential to create impacts, which will be determined by the scale and distance from the surf break.

If an activity has the potential to; i) give rise to a change in the bathymetry that modifies wave transformation or ii) has an attenuating effect on the wave energy, then further investigation would be warranted.

2.4. Wind

Ocean waves are generated by the interactions between wind and the surface of the ocean, with the resultant wave height and period a function of the winds duration, fetch and velocity. Near the shore, wind speed and direction influence the quality of a breaking wave for surfing, with offshore-directed winds being most favourable. In contrast, strong alongshore directed winds are least favourable and can produce short choppy waves with crests orientated perpendicular to the swell wave crest, adversely effecting surfing conditions. Light onshore directed winds are less likely to affect the surface conditions of the surfable wave (e.g. Figure 2.1).

2.5. Surfability

The ‘threshold of surfability’ depends on the type of board, the ability of the surfer and the mix of wave height, wave period, wind strength and direction. Attenuation in wave height is an important aspect of a negative effect on surf, as a relatively small decrease can mean the surfable threshold is not reached.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 9

110 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Figure 2.1 Wave rose depicting the effects of wind strength (knots) and direction on surfing waves (modified from Walker, 1997).

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 10

111 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

3. STENT ROAD SURF BREAKS

The surf breaks of national significance at Stent Road are shown on Figure 3.1. Of these three, Stent is the most popular due to its consistency, power and length of ride. Together, the three breaks at Stent Road provide surfers with choice based on tide level, wind speed and direction, and wave height. Also, given the popularity of this surf destination, having a number of breaks in close proximity can reduce the crowd pressure in the water. An overview of the three breaks is as follows:

 Farmhouse is the least surfed wave of the three; typically ridden over the high tide and during larger wave conditions. A southeast wind is approximately offshore here and the wave is not favoured during a northeasterly wind. The wave peeling is relatively slow and the wave face is generally not very steep. The wave breaks left along a subtidal reef platform.

 Stent has features consistent with a headland or point break, but there is strong focussing of the wave energy toward the point due to the shape of the seabed further out to sea. This combination makes Stent a world-class right hand wave when the conditions are perfect. The wave can be surfed at all tides, and at high tide in northeast winds there is a degree of shelter from the adjacent point, allowing a clean wave face when it would otherwise be choppy and distorted.

 Backdoor (also known as Stent Left) is often favoured during smaller wave conditions because it attracts a lot of wave energy, and also during southeasterly winds because of the shelter afforded by its orientation. The wave can be surfed on all tides, and there is a short right hand wave, and a longer left hander that peels away to the northeast over a boulder reef platform.

Beyond the 10 m depth contour offshore of Stent Road, the bathymetry (Figure 3.2) shows evidence of large-scale reef structures that are expected to rotate and focus the wave energy toward the break locations. This effect can be qualitatively validated by observation – particularly at Stent and Farmhouse where the wave heights are much larger than adjacent parts of the coastline. However, the surf quality at all three of the breaks is likely due to the combination of offshore focusing and boulder reef platforms that extend from the intertidal to the shallow subtidal zone and facilitate a peeling wave with a surfable face. Accordingly, the quality surf conditions at Stent are a result of a two-stage process that starts with offshore pre-conditioning of the waves and ends with nearshore wave peeling over a stable substrate.

It is notable that the high concentration of quality surf breaks between Stent and the Patch (see Figure 3.2) coincide with the presence of large distended offshore reef systems. These features have a morphology consistent with eroded lahar deposits and are typically interspaced with areas of mobile sandy deposits (Crofskey, 2007).

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 11

112 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Backdoor

Stent Road

Farmhouse

Figure 3.1 Aerial photograph showing of the three surf breaks of national significance at Stent Road.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 12

113 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Figure 3.2 The complex bathymetry of the Taranaki coast is revealed from high resolution MBES survey data, reproduced here with permission from Fugro BTW Ltd.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 13

114 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

4. WAIWAKAIHO SURF BREAK

The surf break of national significance at the Waiwakaiho Rivermouth is shown on Figure 4.1, and the underlying bathymetry is presented on Figure 4.2. Waiwakaiho is a left and right hand break; however the right is most favoured for its wave shape and size. The break is highly exposed to the predominant southwesterly winds, and is best surfed in light conditions or offshore (southeasterly) winds. Traditionally the mid to high tide level was the best state for this wave. However, there is anecdotal evidence of degradation in wave quality over the last decade, particularly at high tide. The observation is the breaking wave face is less steep and less defined in terms of breaker location, particularly during smaller wave conditions. During large swell events however, the wave generally shows similar form that led to its selection as a surf break of national significance.

The break features a well-defined focus zone located approximately 1.2 km offshore and to the northwest of the river mouth. The incoming swell waves refract around and shoal over an extensive bathymetric feature. Wave heights increase locally through this process and as they propagate toward the break point, this amplification is maintained. The subtle seabed morphology between the offshore reef and the nearshore surf zone is conducive to preserving a strong wave height gradient, thereby allowing a favourable peel angle. A series of numerical wave model simulations (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) clearly illustrates these processes.

The surf riding section of the wave is over the shallow and intertidal region, and the underlying morphology of this zone is the delta formed by the Waiwakaiho River. Deposition of small boulders, cobbles and gravels over many years has defined the shape of the coast here, and an alluvial fan created by the river is clearly evident in the aerial photographs. In 1981, a rock groyne of 100 m length was constructed west of the river mouth, and extended to approximately 150 m length in 1996. Note the length of this groyne has been misreported over the years, possibly because sediment has accumulated on the western flank of the structure.

Historical aerial photographs were analysed to show the changes in the vegetated shoreline margin (Figure 4.5) and river location (Figures 4.6) over time. The historical data confirms that the presence of the groyne has had a significant effect on the local sediment and river mouth dynamics. The mouth has migrated west to become permanently located adjacent to the groyne; an offset of some 150-170 m from the historical alignment. West of the groyne the shoreline has prograded by at least 50 m, and a new fillet of sand extends some 500 m toward Fitzroy Beach.

It has been speculated that the extension of the groyne by 50 m and associated realignment of the river mouth has led to the degradation of surf quality at the break. A qualitative assessment from the historical aerial images would support that concept. The delta morphology has undoubtedly changed (Figure 4.9 and 4.10) - the eastern shoreline has retreated while the western side has prograded. Changes to the intertidal and shallow subtidal morphology are evident, likely because the alongshore flux of sand is altered by the groyne and new river position, plus the zone of direct deposition of the coarser fluvial material (cobbles and gravels) has shifted westwards. A lowering of the intertidal and shallow subtidal delta in the area of the surf breaker zone is consistent with the surfer observations of degraded wave quality.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 14

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance 115

Figure 4.1 Aerial photo and inset oblique photo showing the Waiwakaiho surf break. Note the refraction of the swell waves arriving west of the port and the strong refraction and focussing of wave energy offshore of the rivermouth.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 15

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Wave focus

Wave break

116

Figure 4.2 Bathymetry of the New Plymouth region, with notation for the zones of wave focussing and breaking at the Waiwakaiho surf break.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 16

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

117

Figure 4.3 Model result for Waiwakaiho, showing wave crest patterns at low tide (left) and high tide (right) during typical energetic swell conditions (Tp=14 s).

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 17

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

118

Figure 4.4 Model result for Waiwakaiho, showing wave height patterns at low tide (left) and high tide (right) during typical energetic swell conditions (Tp=14 s).

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 18

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

119

Figure 4.5 Change in seaward extent of vegetation (2012 base aerial photography).

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 19

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Figure 4.6 Aerial photographs from 1970 (left) and 2012 (right), comparing the river position and shape of the intertidal delta. 120

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 20

121 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

5. DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS

There are six key components to surf breaks that can be used to inform generic guidelines for their protection, and these are discussed as follows. 5.1. Seabed morphology

The morphology of the seabed plays a crucial role in defining surfing waves, and the physical processes that describe the way waves interact with the seabed are well understood. Wave refraction and diffraction, frictional attenuation and other transformational processes can be reliably simulated with numerical models if the shape of the seabed is precisely known. It has been well-documented that changes to the bathymetry can lead to changes in the offshore to nearshore wave transformations, so numerical models can be used effectively to predict such outcomes. Note that changes due to the shape of the seabed can be expressed in a variety of ways, such as wave phase or wave crest linearity’s (i.e. crest-snapping), as well as in the height and direction of the waves. The distance offshore and the water depth, along with the scale of change will all influence the degree of effect on the surf break and the wave quality.

A local example is the Belt Road surf break. The most recent capital dredging to deepen the shipping channel at the entrance to Port Taranaki has had a subtle effect on the way that waves propagate past the main breakwater tip and toward the surf break. This does not change to total wave energy flux, but it has reduced the alongshore wave height gradient and the resultant peel angle, thereby having a detrimental effect on the quality of the left hand rides.

It is not considered appropriate to prescribe a threshold in rules based on the magnitude of change in bathymetry or seabed shape as a guideline. For example, a relatively small change in the seabed shape (say 5 % of depth) over a long distance (say 1 km) can have a very significant effect on waves at the shore due to the progressive refraction and diffraction processes. Accordingly, a “buffer zone” identified on a case-by-case basis via the resource consents process may be more effective.

It is further suggested that a change to the seabed that has the potential to give rise to a change in the wave transformation process should require further assessment through the resource consents process, which is aligned with the intent of the NZCPS. Potential activities which may give rise to a change in the wave transformation are outlined in Table 5.1 below and in Section 5.7 where the unique attributes for the surf breaks of national significance are documented. This can be readily tested by analytical or numerical modelling means. The requirement for further assessment should not be constrained by water depth or spatial extent, and nor should it be triggered by activities that have a very small magnitude and small footprint – such as the disturbance caused by the anchor of a cargo vessel in 50 m water depth. Conversely, an activity such as sand mining, dredge spoil disposal or pipeline installation on the seabed would indeed merit a detailed examination of the effects.

There are other processes that can lead to detrimental bathymetric changes, possibly over relatively long time scales. An example is the

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 21

122 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

extraction of gravel and boulders from a river, thereby depriving the adjacent coast source of suitably coarse material to maintain its morphology. Another example is dredging a shipping channel within an ebb tide delta, leading to loss of material over time and a change in the wave transformation over the subtidal structure. In both of these examples, it may be decades until negative effects on surf are realised. In all cases, baseline data on the bathymetry offshore of the break (i.e. in the key parts of the swell corridor) as well as at the wave breaking location is crucial for an effective protection regime. 5.2. Coastal structures and coastal processes

Changes to the coastal orientation due to erosion or accretion have the potential to affect the surf quality - by direct or indirect means. An example is Waiwakaiho, where the progressive construction of the groyne has caused considerable accretion and realignment of the adjacent beach with a zone of progradation that extends approximately 500 m to the west. This offset of at least 50 m in the beach face at the groyne has changed the sediment dynamics of the river mouth, and led to a permanent westward reorientation of the mouth by 150-170 m. The intertidal morphology east of the groyne as has responded to this change and it is considered likely that the morphology of the larger subtidal delta is also evolving. Here, cobbles and gravels provide the basis for the wave breaker zone, and there is anecdotal evidence that erosion of material from this zone has led to loss of wave quality over the past decade. An adequate monitoring and reporting regime on the intertidal and coastal environment will allow identification of such changes, particularly if the potential impacts on the surf quality are known to the regulators.

Wave reflection off coastal structures is another potential impact on surf quality, and may be of importance in the future – particularly with rising sea levels. Reflected waves can interfere with the surfing wave shape. An example is St Clair beach in Dunedin, where the surf has suffered degradation due to a poorly designed coastal structure and dangerous reflection of a sea wall. This has also created access problems and risk to surfers entering and exiting the water at high tide. 5.3. Surfer access

Access to the surf is an important component to preservation of the use and enjoyment of the breaks. As noted above, this can include the entry / exit locations, but also vehicle or pedestrian access. Another example from Otago is the closure of beaches to surfing in preference to wild life tourism activities. Public access on the coast is primarily a district council responsibility but could be addressed in the policy framework of the Coastal Plan. 5.4. Wind

The wind speed and direction governs surf quality at many (if not all) the breaks in Taranaki. In most cases, a reduction in wind speed would be considered a beneficial effect at many of the surf breaks. Note however, sports that use wave and wind (kitesurf and windsurf) would generally value wind, and would view shelter or distortion as a negative effect.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 22

123 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

5.5. Wave energy attenuation and wave crest distortion

Aside from bathymetric effects, surf quality can be negatively impacted by the attenuation of the incoming wave energy and distortion of the wave crests. Offshore structures such as floating or fixed production facilities and wave energy converters have the potential to create impacts, but only if they are deployed in an array (i.e. groups of structures) or are very close to the surf break.

5.6. Water quality

The water quality is a relevant component to preservation of the use and enjoyment of the breaks. Sewerage and river discharges in the vicinity of a surf break may affect the water quality, making it unsafe or inappropriate to surf. Changes to flow regimes and sediment supply can affect the shape of the rivermouth and therefore the surf quality.

5.7. Overview of effects on key components of surfbreaks

The types of activity that could potentially affect the key components of all surf breaks are summarised in Table 5.1.

5.8. Breaks of National Significance

Summary information of the four Taranaki surf breaks of national significance are presented below, including the key components that are specific to each breaks to serve as a general guideline for their protection. The information outlined in Table 5.1, which applies to all surf breaks, should also be considered when assessing whether an activity could potentially have an effect on a functional aspects of a surf break and/or the recreational experience.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 23

124 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Table 5.1 Examples of generic activities and effects on surf breaks.

Key component Activity Affect Changes to the seabed shape in the swell wave Seabed Dredging and corridor to the surf break can affect the wave crest morphology mining linearity as well as the wave height and direction. Coastal Sea wall, pipeline, Numerous types of effects can arise from a coastal structures and groyne, structure. An expert interpretation is recommended coastal breakwater and to assess each case. processes jetty Access to the surf is an important component to Disruption of preservation of the use and enjoyment of the Surfer access access breaks, including entry / exit locations for pedestrians and vehicular access to the coast. Modification of wind speed and direction may affect surf breaks. A reduction in wind speed could be a Wind Windfarm beneficial effect in many cases. However, sports as kitesurf and windsurf would generally view shelter or distortion as a negative effect. Floating or fixed production facilities and wave Wave energy Offshore energy converters have the potential to modify attenuation and structures wave conditions. However the effects are strongly crest distortion dependent on scale and proximity. Sewage discharge in the vicinity of a surf break Sewage may affect the water quality of the area and make it discharge unsafe or inappropriate to surf. River water quality can affect the water quality in Water quality the adjacent surf break and make it unsafe or River discharges inappropriate to surf. Changes to flow regimes and sediment supply can affect the shape of the rivermouth and therefore the surf quality.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 24

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Name Waiwakaiho River Mouth Relevance Nationally significant Location 1695806.23E, 5678732.33N Type Reef break Offshore focussing of wave energy onto a river delta Formed by formed by cobbles and boulders.

- Wastewater discharge from the adjacent outfall Currently modified by - Groyne - Changes to the shape of the offshore focussing reef - Changes to the alignment of the river - Changes to the shape of the river delta Could potentially be - Changes to the sediment flux from the river adversely affected by - Deterioration of water quality of the river - Deterioration of the quality of the wastewater 125 discharge from the adjacent outfall

- Gravel extraction from the river Activities with potential - Continuation of the groyne in its existing form to cause adverse - Industrial or agricultural discharges into the river effects* - Untreated sewage discharge

*Also the activities outlined in Table 5.1 which apply to all surf breaks.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 25

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Name Back of Stent Relevance Nationally significant Location 1667064.80E, 5658567.36N Type Reef break

Formed by Cobble and boulder reef platform.

- Adjacent stream Currently modified by - Pedestrian access

- Deterioration in water quality from the adjacent Could potentially be stream adversely affected by - Restrictions to pedestrian access 126

- Agricultural discharges into the stream Activities with potential - Array of offshore wave energy converters to cause adverse - Gas pipeline construction effects* - Offshore sand mining

*Also the activities outlined in Table 5.1 which apply to all surf breaks.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 26

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Name Stent Road Relevance Nationally significant Location 1667003.61E, 5658226.38N Type Headland reef break

Wave focusing from an offshore reef to a stable boulder Formed by platform that extends to form a headland.

Currently modified by

Could potentially be - Changes to surfer access adversely affected by - Changes to the shape of the offshore focussing reef 127

Activities with potential - Array of offshore wave energy converters to cause adverse - Gas pipeline construction effects* - Offshore sand mining

*Also the activities outlined in Table 5.1 which apply to all surf breaks.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 27

Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

Name Farmhouse Stent Relevance Nationally significant Location 1666933.58E, 5658086.35N Type Reef break

Formed by Boulder reef platform

Currently modified by

Affected by 128

- Array of offshore wave energy converters Examples of activities - Gas pipeline construction - Offshore sand mining.

*Also the activities outlined in Table 5.1 which apply to all surf breaks.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 28

129 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

5.9. Recommendations for regionally significant surf breaks

A workshop should be undertaken with interested parties to confirm the location and identify the unique aspects of all of the 81 regionally significant surf breaks. This will provide additional site specific data for those breaks similar to the tables we have for the nationally significant breaks. This will help us ensure that we identify all types of activities that could potentially affect these regionally significant surf breaks.

5.10. Further recommendations to assist with monitoring and implementation

 A baseline survey of the bathymetry at the Stent Road and Kumara Patch breaks is strongly recommended. This should include the adjacent offshore regions to characterise the wave preconditioning zones, and extend through the break and include the upper shore and coastal margin.

 A regional high quality bathymetric database should be established, and access to the data in Figure 1.2 negotiated. Further survey to fill in the gaps toward the shore and around the other breaks of regional significance should be promoted over time, including those required via the consenting process. Of particular merit is the zone from Stent to the Kumara Patch. This is a region that would suit MSc research projects, thereby minimising cost and optimising the community knowledge gains.

 An open data policy is also advocated, which will allow interest groups and researchers the opportunity to undertake independent studies.

 Recommendation to develop a “buffer zone” that associates “size” and “scale” of an activity and the possible effect on the surf breaks. See Table 5.1 as an example.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 29

130 Taranaki Surf Breaks of National Significance

6. REFERENCES

Beamsley, B. and Black, K.P., 2003. The effect of offshore reefs on inshore surfing conditions. In: Black, K.P., and Mead, S.T. (eds.), Artificial Surfing Reefs 2003: The 3rd International Conference. Crofskey, E. 2007. The distribution of Ecklonia radiata around the North Taranaki headland and its relationship with key physical characteristics. MSc Thesis, Marine Science University of Auckland. Scarfe, B. M. H.S. Elwany, S. T. Mead, and K. P. Black. The Science of Surfing Waves and Surfing Breaks - A Review. March 7, 2003a. Scripps Institution of Oceanography Technical Report. http://repositories.cdlib.org/sio/techreport/17 Mead, S. T. , K. P. Black , and J. A. Hutt . 1998. An Artificial Offshore Reef at Tay Street, Mount Maunganui Beach: Report 1—Reef Design and Physical and Biological Process. Hamilton, New Zealand Centre of Excellence in Coastal Oceanography and Marine Geology, The University of Waikato and NIWA. 105 p.

Mead, S.T. and Black, K.P., 2001. Functional component combinations controlling surfing quality at world-class surfing breaks. In: BLACK, K. P. (ed.), Natural and Artificial Reefs for Surfing and Coastal Protection. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 29, pp. 21-32.

MetOcean Solutions Ltd 30

131

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Draft submission on Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16

Item: 9

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1666440

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce a draft submission on the Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16 and to recommend its adoption by the Council.

The closing date for submissions is Friday 6 May 2016.

A copy of the draft submission and consultation document are attached to this memorandum for Members’ information.

Executive summary Maritime New Zealand has released a consultation document on the review of the Oil Pollution Levy. The Levy helps funds the cost of oil pollution preparedness by imposing a levy on operators in the commercial maritime industry, and enables Maritime New Zealand to operate the Marine Pollution Response Service (MPRS) and associated regulatory and compliance services.

The consultation document proposes to provide an overall Levy with two components: a Baseline Levy, with an increase in the baseline from current levels to take into account increases in costs that have occurred since the last review, and a Capability Levy to address the capability issues raised in the consultation document.

The focus in the consultation document is on addressing equipment obsolescence issues and adding to existing capabilities to provide faster, more effective responses with greater reach from the shore and more effective and efficient responses to larger incidents.

Of the four Options set out in the consultation document, the draft submission supports Option D – Full Capability Plan as this option would implement all the recommendations of the Capability Plan and is the option that would give most effect to the New Zealand Marine

132

Oil Spill Response Strategy. The draft submission notes that the financial costs to operators of implementing Option D are small compared to the value of the cargoes carried and the potential harm to people and the environment.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum Submission on Review of the Oil Pollution levy 2015/16 2. adopts the submission with any changes recommended by the Committee.

Background Maritime New Zealand has released a consultation document on the review of the Oil Pollution Levy. The Levy helps fund the cost of oil pollution preparedness by imposing a levy on operators in the commercial maritime industry – those who use oil as fuel, transport oil and the offshore oil industry – and enables Maritime New Zealand to operate the Marine Pollution Response Service (MPRS) and associated regulatory and compliance services.

The last review was carried out in 2012 and established the principle of a regular three yearly review cycle. The consultation document presents the proposals that are the outcome of the first of these regular reviews.

The 2012 review addressed a funding shortfall that was the result of a deliberate decision to spend the balance of the Oil Pollution Fund (into which the Levy is payed) in the previous years. It also implemented some additional, limited, capability requirements that were the result of the Rena incident off the coast of Tauranga in 2011, and a limited amount of capital to purchase equipment recommended in the review of the MPRS. Funding for both of these additional components will expire on 30 June 2016.

Under the Maritime Transport Act, Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) is required to prepare a New Zealand marine oil spill response strategy and to review it at least every five years. The most recent revision of the Strategy occurred in 2015 when the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy 2015-2019 was adopted. Members will recall that the Council made a submission on the draft Strategy and while supporting the risk-based approach in the Strategy to the assessment of the risks of a marine oil spill, noted that the Oil Pollution Levy, which funds the Oil Pollution Fund, was inadequate to manage a major oil spill response.

The Council’s submission to the Strategy also called for a comprehensive and specialist oil spill response centre to be based at Port Taranaki, recognising Taranaki’s high oil spill risk rating relative to other regions.

MNZ has since developed a Capability Plan that provides detail on the additional capabilities and equipment that might be considered necessary to support delivery of the Strategy.

As a result, the consultation document proposes to provide an overall Levy with two components: a Baseline Levy, with an increase in the baseline from current levels to take into account increases in costs that have occurred since the last review, and a Capability Levy to address the capability issues raised in the consultation document.

133

Overall, the current capability is considered by MNZ to be effective and efficient for smaller spills and those close to the shore in sheltered waters. However, the equipment and material held is aging rapidly, with much of it beyond the end of is useful life. In earlier years, policy decisions resulted in the use of cash reserves to fund routine operational activity rather than to build up reserves for future purchases. MNZ consider that insufficient funds are available to pay for the required equipment and materials to maintain the current level of capability.

The focus in the consultation document is on addressing equipment obsolescence issues and adding to existing capabilities to provide faster, more effective responses with greater reach from the shore and more effective and efficient responses to larger incidents. As is well summed up in the consultation document, the greater the ability to prevent oil reaching the shoreline, the less the consequences will be, reducing impacts on communities and saving time and money.

The consultation document therefore presents four options for consideration and has invited feedback on them. The options are:

• Option A: Capability sustainment • Option B: Capability Growth 1 • Option C: Capability Growth 2 • Option D: Full Capability Plan.

The Baseline Levy is the same under all Options but it has been increased from what is presently collected in order to maintain the current levels of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response services at 2015/16 levels.

The four Options then provide for a range of capability improvements, delivering to varying degrees on the goals of the revised Strategy, within the context of updated information and risk assessments that underpin the setting of the Levy.

The Council has previously submitted on the Levy. Discussion The draft submission makes the point strongly that the Oil Pollution Levy needs to be set at a level that matches the risk we face in New Zealand from oil pollution. The submission maintains that the current Oil Pollution levy is inadequate to initiate and manage a major oil spill response. It provides context for this by outlining major oil spills or ‘near misses’ in Taranaki, for example the Tui oil spill in 2007 and the near grounding of the MV Lake Triview in May 2014.

It also emphasises that Taranaki remains the centre of oil and gas exploration and production in New Zealand and that there is an ever present risk of an oil spill in the region. We have therefore taken the opportunity to again call for a specialist oil spill response centre to be established in Taranaki – and one that is based on larger oil spill response operations further from the shore. This would be in line with thinking in the consultation document to significantly increase New Zealand’s capabilities for responding to larger oil spill incidents further out to sea. This conclusion is supported by a number of assessments undertaken for MNZ.

Of the proposed options for a new levy, the draft submission rejects Option A ‘Capability sustainment’ as it would only deliver the current level of regulatory, compliance and

134

readiness and response capabilities and does not address the goals of the revised New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy or the Capability Plan.

The draft submission agrees with MNZ that future capability needs to be increased to deal with incidents occurring further out to sea and involving effective and efficient responses to larger incidents.

It fully supports Option D – Full capability Plan as this would implement all the recommendations of the Capability Plan and is the option that would give most effect to the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy. Option D delivers the best capability to prevent oil from reaching the shore and therefore reducing impacts and saving costs.

Several aspects of this option are supported in particular. These are adding a larger workboat more capable of operating further from the shore, a substantial increase in the National Response Team training and greatly enhanced Vessel of Opportunity capabilities. The draft submission notes that the financial costs to operators of implementing Option D are small compared to the value of the cargoes carried and the potential harm to people and the environment.

The Council’s submission again calls for a comprehensive and specialist oil spill response centre to be based at Port Taranaki, recognising Taranaki’s high oil spill risk rating relative to other regions.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

Policy considerations This memorandum and the associated recommendations are consistent with the policy documents and positions adopted by this Council under various legislative frameworks including, but not restricted to, the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

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

Attachments Document 1663831: Submission on review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16 Document 1666590: Review of Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16

135

5 May 2016 Document: 1663831

Oil Pollution Levy Consultation Maritime New Zealand PO Box 25620 Wellington

Submission on review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16

Introduction

1. The Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) thanks Maritime New Zealand for the opportunity to make a submission on the review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16.

2. The Council makes this submission in recognition of the purpose of local government set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the role, status and powers, and principles under that Act relating to local authorities. In particular, the Council has prepared this submission in recognition of its:

• functions and responsibilities under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Resource Management Act 1991 • regional advocacy responsibilities whereby the Council represents the Taranaki region on matters of regional significance or concern.

3. The Council has also been guided by its Mission Statement ‘To work for a thriving and prosperous Taranaki’ across all of its various functions, roles and responsibilities, in preparing this submission.

Overview

4. As a general comment, preventing an oil spill from occurring in the first instance is clearly preferable to cleaning up after a spill has occurred. This is acknowledged in the Consultation Document (page 1) and the Council raises for consideration by Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) whether, as a nation, we could do more in this area, for example requiring ships to carry GPS based automated early warning alarm systems. Such a system may well have prevented the MV Lake Triview incident off the coast of Taranaki in 2014.

5. The Council is strongly of the view that the Oil Pollution Levy needs to match the level of risk we face in New Zealand from oil pollution. It also follows that we need appropriate capability in the form of infrastructure and organisational capacity to

136

match this level of risk. The Council considers that the current Oil Pollution Levy is inadequate to initiate and manage a major oil spill response. The Council makes further comment on this later in the submission.

6. The Rena grounding on the Astrolabe reef in October 2011 and the more recent grounding of the MV Lake Triview in May 2014 off the coast of Taranaki – only 400 metres from the mouth of the Waiwhakaiho River and New Plymouth city – have highlighted the actual and potential effects of oil spills from shipping.

7. In the case of the MV Lake Triview grounding fines totalling $157,500 were imposed. This was the first prosecution brought under the Resource Management Act 1991 which reflected the incident’s potential for significant adverse effects on the environment. In this case the ship’s hull was breached in 24 places, including fuel tanks damaged to the point of almost leaking, and a potential oil or cargo spill with serious consequences for the Taranaki environment and community was only narrowly avoided. The ship was carrying 400 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and was due to refuel. The incident was very similar to the MV Rena where 350 tonnes of heavy fuel oil was spilt.

8. Taranaki is the centre of the oil and gas exploration and production industry in New Zealand. While the oil and gas industry in Taranaki has an excellent environmental record, over the industry as a whole (including off shore exploration and production platforms, bulk transfer of oil via FPSO vessels, harbour based tank storage, and downstream industries involved in the further processing of hydrocarbons) there is an ever present risk of an oil spill.

9. Over the years, a number of small spills have occurred within Port Taranaki, mainly from bunkering (fuel loading), and these have been cleaned up under Tier 1 and 2 arrangements. In 2000, a spill from the offshore Pohokura field drilling rig sat at sea for some time and eventually washed up along 2 kilometres of beach. An offshore capability would have greatly assisted in the clean-up operation. In 2007 an estimated 33 tonnes of oil in the Tui field off the western Taranaki coastline was spilled and 23 tonnes came ashore along 14 kilometres of Taranaki coastline.

10. The Tui oil spill is the biggest ever crude oil spill in New Zealand to date, and is the third biggest oil spill of any sort after the Rena and Jody F Millennium. It is the biggest ever spill handled at the Tier 2 level in New Zealand and although it was a very efficient and successful clean-up operation, the clean-up took 8 months. The direct cost of the recovery operation was $87,000.

11. If we had had an appropriate offshore capability (and we had known about the spills earlier) we would have been able to minimise what came ashore and greatly reduced the cost of the clean-up to the community and to the environment.

12. However, the recent downturn in the oil and gas industry should not mean that we ‘take our eye off the ball’. Oil and gas is very much a central part of the Government’s energy strategy going forward, and the recent Block Offer 2016 only confirms this. The Taranaki Regional Council again calls for a comprehensive and specialist oil spill response centre to be based at Port Taranaki. This is particularly

137

important given Taranaki’s significant high risk oil spill rating by MNZ, the specialist services and facilities already based here and the region’s willingness to accommodate such a centre within an existing port operation.

13. Early and efficient response options are imperative if an effective oil spill recovery is to be undertaken. Although early response generally involves using dispersants, this is not the best option in Taranaki as the window of opportunity is very limited (one to two hours) and this capability should therefore lie with the Tier I response. Tier II and Tier III responders on the other hand, should be using effective equipment stored in a local facility. This would include side arm skimmers and J-booming using appropriate boats and ro-booms.

14. In Taranaki there is a small weather window where calm seas would allow us to contain and recover all types of oil on water. This can only be done if the correct equipment is stored close to the spill site and is available at short notice.

15. The review of the oil pollution levy provides an opportunity for Taranaki, one of New Zealand’s highest risk areas, to be adequately funded to respond to a major oil spill in future.

16. Response capability planning by MNZ is important to ensure New Zealand is well placed to deal with the effects of an oil spill and to implement the Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy: 2015-2019 (the Strategy). Capability is made up of multiple components such as personnel, training, equipment and exercises and is funded via the levy.

Proposed options for new Levy

Option A – Capability sustainment

17. This option is not supported by the Taranaki Regional Council. It would only deliver the current level of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response capabilities and does not address the goals of the recently revised Strategy or the Capability Plan which sets out the detail of how the Strategy will be delivered.

18. This option would not take into account the lessons learnt from the Rena incident and nor would it take into account international marine oil spill incidents and trends in shipping.

19. The Strategy identifies a need to change the size, type and distribution of oil spill response assets to enable New Zealand to respond more effectively to oil spill incidents that are likely to occur in future. The Council agrees with Maritime New Zealand that future capability needs to be increased to deal with incidents occurring further out to sea and involving effective and efficient responses to larger incidents.

20. For these reasons Option A is not supported.

138

Option D – Full Capability Plan

21. This Option is fully supported by the Council. It implements all of the recommendations of the Capability Plan.

22. Apart from adding more systems for inshore and near-shore response and some improvements in dealing with spills further from the shoreline (benefits delivered by Options B and C), Option D delivers much better capability to prevent oil from reaching the shoreline thus further reducing impacts and saving costs. The Council fully supports Maritime New Zealand in the need for increased capability in this area and endorses the comment on page 2 of the Consultation Document:

‘The greater the ability to prevent oil reaching the shoreline, the less the consequences will be, reducing the impacts on communities and saving time and money’.

23. The proposal to add a new larger workboat more capable of operation further from the shore is supported but the Council would like to see this vessel dedicated to oil spill response and recovery. It could be contracted out to other operations when not on oil spill response training or operational work.

24. The Council particularly supports two further proposals under Option D – a significant increase in National Response Team Training and enhancing the Vessel of Opportunity capability.

25. A substantial increase in National Response Team training will mean there are more members that are better trained. This will result in a greatly increased ability to respond to a major event.

26. The proposal to enhance the Vessel of Opportunity capability would see more vessels pre-arranged, trained and available for involvement in any response effort. The involvement of commercial operators based locally (or further afield), to support spill response operations is supported. This approach is in place in Taranaki now and could be extended.

27. The focus of Option D in preventing oil from reaching the shoreline requires more investment in infrastructure and equipment that is appropriate for use further from shore but the added benefits of reducing impacts and saving costs of clean-up on the shoreline will mean significant cost savings and reduced impacts on communities in the long term. The financial costs to operators are small compared to the value of the cargoes carried and the potential for harm to people and the environment. Foreign vessels, including cruise ships, currently provide about 70 % of the levy revenue. Any cost increases could be phased to assist industry financial planning.

28. Furthermore, policies in the Council’s operative Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki clearly state that use and development of the coastal marine area of Taranaki should avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on ecological values such as spawning habitat, fishing areas, water fowl, and marine mammal breeding areas and haul-out

139

sites among other values. The Coastal Plan amongst other things, looks to avoid the release of contaminants that will have significant adverse effects on marine life. 29. The Taranaki Regional Council fully supports Option D as set out in the Consultation Document.

Conclusion

30. The Taranaki Regional Council again thanks Maritime New Zealand for the opportunity to make a submission on the review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16.

31. The Council supports Option D. The new capability levy of Option D gives effect to recommendations in the Capability Plan which sets out the equipment, training and resources needed to deliver on the goals of the revised New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy.

32. The Taranaki Regional Council submits that a dedicated, specialised oil spill readiness and response centre be established at Port Taranaki. The establishment of such a facility would be consistent with the aims of the Strategy.

Yours faithfully BG Chamberlain Chief Executive

per: A D McLay Director - Resource Management

140

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015/16 Consultation Document March 2016 141

Contents Background to the proposals ...... iii Introduction ...... 1 New Zealand’s current marine oil spill response capability ...... 1 The need for increased capability ...... 2 The current Levy ...... 2 Proposals on the Methodology for the new Levy ...... 3 Proposed method of allocation of funding required to sectors ...... 3 Levy Calculation within each sector ...... 3 MOSRA 15 ...... 4 Risk Allocation ...... 4 Use of the Shoreline Impact Basis to calculate sector share ...... 4 Bunker fuel carried by tankers ...... 5 Segregated ballast water tanks ...... 5 Components of the new levy ...... 7 Baseline Levy - $5.17 million per year ...... 7 Capability Plan ...... 8 Summary of the Capability Plan ...... 8 Investment Drivers ...... 9 Objective and Benefits of the Capability Plan ...... 9 Independent Peer Review of Capability Plan...... 10 Capability Levy Options ...... 10 Stretching and Scaling of Options ...... 11 Proposed options for a new Levy ...... 12 Option A - Capability Sustainment ($6.526 million per year) ...... 13 Option B – Capability Growth 1 ($7.541 million per year) ...... 16 Option C – Capability Growth 2 ($8.049 million per year) ...... 20 Option D – Full Capability Plan ($8.852 million per year) ...... 23 Comparison of options ...... 27 Benefits delivered by each option ...... 28 Other matters ...... 30 Consideration of a performance-based Levy ...... 30 Oil Pollution Fund Reserves ...... 31 How to submit ...... 32

Appendices Appendix 1: Baseline operating expenditure ...... 33 Appendix 2: Operational and capital expenditure – Option A ...... 34 Appendix 3: Rates and sector shares - Option A ...... 36 Appendix 4: Operational and capital expenditure – Option B ...... 39 Appendix 5: Rates and sector shares - Option B ...... 41

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

i 142

Appendix 6: Operational and capital expenditure – Option C ...... 44 Appendix 7: Rates and sector shares - Option C ...... 46 Appendix 8: Operational and capital expenditure – Option D ...... 49 Appendix 9: Rates and sector shares – Option D ...... 51 Appendix 10: Comparison of options - Capability ...... 54

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

ii 143

Background to the proposals Maritime New Zealand is a key player in the regulatory, compliance and response framework that is designed to manage the risk of marine oil pollution, and ensure that New Zealand is prepared to respond effectively to any oil spills that occur in the marine environment.

The framework for marine oil spill prevention, preparedness and response activities includes the Maritime Transport Act 1994, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

Internationally, New Zealand is a signatory to a number of conventions relating to oil spill liability for those operating in the marine environment. New Zealand is also a signatory to the Oil Preparedness, Response and Co-Operation Convention which enables us to call on other signatories to assist in the event of a major marine oil spill.

The cost of oil pollution preparedness is met by operators in the maritime sector either directly or through the Oil Pollution Fund (the Fund). The Fund is financed by the Oil Pollution Levy (the Levy), which is paid by the commercial maritime industry - those who use oil as fuel, transport oil, and the offshore oil industry. These levy contributions enable Maritime New Zealand to operate the Marine Pollution Response Service (MPRS) and to deliver associated regulatory and compliance services.

The previous review was conducted in 2012 and as well as setting the current levy rates, also established the principle of a regular three yearly review. This document presents the proposals that are the outcome of the first in this series of regular reviews.

The 2012 review addressed a funding shortfall that was the result of a deliberate decision to spend down the balance of the Fund in the preceding years; it also implemented some additional, limited, capability requirements that were the result of a review of New Zealand’s response to the Rena incident off the coast of Tauranga in October 2011 and provided a limited amount of capital funding to purchase equipment and material recommended in a 2010/11 review of MPRS. Funding for these additional components (capability and equipment) will expire on 30 June 2016.

Under the Maritime Transport Act (MTA), Maritime New Zealand is required to develop a New Zealand marine oil spill response strategy, and to review it at least every five years. The most recent revision of the strategy is the New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy 2015-2019 (the Strategy). The revised Strategy outlines the means by which New Zealand will respond to a marine oil spill using a tiered system, beginning with industry, moving through Regional Council and up to Maritime New Zealand and international partners. Each tier is required to prepare contingency plans and have a response capability.

Maritime New Zealand has developed the Capability Plan for Marine Oil Spill Readiness and Response 2016/17–2018/19 (the Capability Plan) to detail the additional capabilities and equipment that might be considered to support the delivery of the Strategy.

This consultation document includes proposals to provide an overall Levy with two components: a Baseline Levy, with an increase in the baseline from current levels to take into account increases in costs that have occurred since the last review, and a Capability Levy to address capability matters.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

iii

144

Introduction This consultation document makes proposals to amend the amount of the Levy collected, in order to, as a minimum, maintain the current levels of regulatory, compliance, readiness and response services (as at 2015/16) in relation to marine oil spills. The additional focus is on delivering the goals of the revised Strategy within the context of updated activity information and risk assessments that underpin the setting of the Levy. As such, options are included for a range of capability improvements.

Several pieces of work have provided input into this review of the Levy. These include the Marine Oil Spill Risk Assessment 2015 (MOSRA 15), and the Capability Plan. These have shaped the new levy proposals and provide the basis for the calculations and assumptions made in this discussion document. The revised Strategy also influenced the development of the options presented.

The proposals in this document are made up of:

 How the Levy is calculated: This review proposes to use a risk based methodology derived from the data in the MOSRA 15 for determining the contribution of each sector. This is in line with the way the current Levy was apportioned.

 The financial proposals: There are two proposed components of a new Levy: Baseline and Capability, with various options presented for the Capability component.

 Other proposals: These are matters that Maritime NZ has been asked to consider in the course of conducting this review.

New Zealand’s current marine oil spill response capability New Zealand requires the capability to effectively manage the likelihood and consequences of a marine oil spill; the capability must be efficient, effective, affordable and proportionate to the risks.

Prevention, through high quality regulation and compliance activities, helps to reduce the likelihood of an oil spill occurring. Adequate readiness and response capabilities ensure an effective response and thus minimise the consequences when a spill occurs.

Current capability is generated through four principal service components:

 the development, maintenance and administration of the national marine oil spill response strategy, including international cooperation

 ensuring that tiered contingency oil spill response plans are developed and maintained at the national, regional government and operator level to give effect to the strategy, including the development and maintenance of a national training plan for oil spill responders, and the implementation of that plan in accordance with the strategy

 the regular training for and exercising of contingency response plans at the national, regional and operator levels

 the provision of sufficient resources to effectively implement the strategy and associated contingency plans, including response equipment.

Maritime New Zealand primarily delivers these services through MPRS with a core team of 8.2 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff – covering planning, exercises, training, logistics and operations. In addition there is also significant involvement from policy, legal, environmental and technical specialists across the organisation.

Significant equipment and material stockpiles are held, maintained and supported for use in the event of a marine oil spill. Overall holdings are valued currently at around $15 million and include stocks of chemical dispersants, booms, skimmers and storage tanks for the protection of shorelines and the on- water collection of oil in sheltered areas, pumping systems, small harbour and estuary vessels,

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

1

145

vehicles, and support systems and equipment such as communications and storage. Much of the equipment is quite old and overall the focus of capability has been on sheltered waters capability and shoreline protection.

MPRS oversees industry and regional and local authorities’ preparations for responding to a marine oil spill, and also trains and maintains a National Response Team focused on responding to major national level oil spill events.

Overall, the current capability is considered to be effective and efficient for smaller spills and those close to the shore in sheltered waters. However, the equipment and material held by MPRS on behalf of New Zealand is aging rapidly, with much of it at or beyond the end of its useful life. In earlier years, policy decisions resulted in the use of cash reserves to fund routine operational activity rather than to build up large reserves for future purchases. As such, insufficient funds are available to pay for the required equipment and materials to maintain the current level of capability.

The need for increased capability The revised Strategy takes into full account the lessons from the Rena incident and response, international marine oil spill incidents, trends in shipping, and the ageing response assets that are due for replacement from 2016 onwards.

The Strategy identifies a need to change the size, type and distribution of oil spill response assets to enable Maritime NZ to more effectively respond to the size and type of marine oil spill incident that is likely to occur. The following steps need to be made:

 The current ability to respond to incidents occurring further out to sea is low, but the consequence of these events would be high. Capability for this type of incident needs to be increased with different response equipment from that currently held;

 Greater emphasis needs to be given to an effective and efficient response for larger, national level, spill incidents (Tier 3) due to the consequences of these spills - economic and environmental damage;

 Taken together these factors require improved or different equipment, as well as enhanced training and exercising of response personnel.

The Capability Plan addresses the issues identified in the Strategy and sets out a comprehensive analysis of capability requirements and potential options. The focus is on addressing equipment obsolescence issues, sustaining capability improvements made in the current levy period and adding to those capabilities to provide faster, more effective responses with greater reach from the shore and more efficient and effective responses to larger incidents. The greater the ability to prevent oil reaching the shoreline, the less the consequences will be, reducing impacts on communities and saving time and money.

We propose a number of options with, as a minimum, the maintenance of the current 2015 capability level. In terms of enhancing capability, we present a range of options, recognising the potentially significant funding requirements and that there are choices to be made around the level of capability that is desired. We are recommending that all options are considered over a six-year funding period – two Levy review cycles – but undertaking a review at the three year mid-point to assess any need for changes based on risk and activity levels.

The current Levy The current Oil Pollution Levies Order 2013 provides for a levy with three separate components:

 The ‘Base Levy’, which aims to generate $4.6 million per year to maintain business as usual in terms of meeting Maritime NZ’s obligations to maintain oil pollution preparedness and response capability at the level considered appropriate at the time the levy was set;

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

2 146

 An ‘Equipment Levy’ of $600,000 per year for three years to cover the cost of essential oil spill equipment as identified by a review of New Zealand’s oil spill response capability conducted by Thompson Clarke Shipping in 2010, and

 A ‘Capability Levy’ of $400,000 per year for three years to fund the implementation of specific, oil related, recommendations from Rena debriefs, some enhancement to MPRS systemic capability, and National Response Team training.

Under the current order, both the Equipment Levy and the Capability Levy components cease to be collected as of 1 July 2016.

The target annual total amount of funding ($5.6 million) is divided amongst industry levy payers based on an assessment of the industry sector’s contribution to New Zealand’s overall risk of a marine oil spill. The risk assessment for the current levy is the Marine Oil Spill Risk Assessment 2010 (MOSRA 10). The assessment was carried out by the independent consultancy Navigatus Consulting Ltd. For the current levy, MOSRA 10 was updated in 2012 with the most current risk information available, and levy contributions apportioned according to contribution to risk.

Proposals on the Methodology for the new Levy

Proposed method of allocation of funding required to sectors We propose no change to the methodology for allocating the new Levy target amount to contributing sectors but we propose to use an updated version of the risk assessment undertaken in 2015 with the latest available data and taking into account improvements in oil spill modelling (MOSRA 15 – again undertaken by Navigatus). The final revenue target (the total amount that it is proposed the Fund collects per year) will be divided by the sector risk assessment allocation percentage derived from the MOSRA 15 to calculate the Levy contribution required from each sector. MOSRA 15 and its appendices are available at: maritimenz.govt.nz/Environmental/Marine-oil-spill-risk-assessment/

Levy Calculation within each sector Having determined what share of the Levy revenue should be raised from each sector, a method is required to translate this overall sector share into a practicable, collectable and equitable rate for individual vessels or operators within the sector.

Each MOSRA details, for each sector, how much of that sector’s risk share comes from oil carried as cargo (persistent and non-persistent) and how much from oil carried as bunker fuel. This breakdown allows the sector share revenue total to be broken down into one of these three risk areas. The next step is to model the expected level of activity in the sector during the period of the proposed levy. With this data, a calculation is then made of how much to charge per tonne of oil carried as cargo (split into persistent and non-persistent) and, using ‘Gross Tonnage’ as a proxy for bunker fuel capacity, how much to charge for oil as bunker fuel.

For the offshore oil sector, the contribution is proposed to be set or fixed at the current level and this does not vary across the options.

We propose to follow the same methodology to calculate the rates required from individual levy contributors as in the current levy, using risk data from MOSRA 15.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

3 147

MOSRA 15 MOSRA 15 builds on previous risk assessments that have been undertaken since 1992, in particular building on the 2012 Sector report, which updated the information contained in the MOSRA 10 report with the most current risk information available in 2012. Table 1 shows the changes in the sector share of risk between the previous 2012 sector report and the sector share percentages in MOSRA 15.

Each sector’s percentage share of risk has been changed by the MOSRA 15 update. For three sectors, there are very significant changes for example foreign tankers’, domestic tankers’ and offshore oil. The changes are due to a combination of factors, including changes in activity in each sector, a better understanding of what amounts of oil are actually carried, a better understanding of vessel routing (from modern tracking systems) and significant improvements in modelling and analysis. MOSRA 15 is far more effective than previous assessments at modelling the effect of winds, currents and sea temperature on potential oil spills.

Risk Allocation It is important to note that the MOSRA process looks at risk in terms of likelihood (probability) and consequence and uses both domestic and international data. International data is necessary due to the very small sample sizes for purely New Zealand based activity, from a statistical analysis perspective.

The MOSRA then takes these results and for the sector share analysis considers the relative risk between sectors, i.e. which sector has the greatest risk when compared to the other sectors. This can be thought of as the total risk being 100 units and determining how much of this total is allocated to each sector. As such, although the MOSRA work considers risk arising from marine activities, the sector share allocation is not concerned with whether there has been an increase or decrease in the total marine oil spill risk but rather apportions a share of New Zealand’s total marine oil spill risk to each sector, based on their contribution. It is a relative measure.

As the sector share is based on a total of one hundred percentage points, a decrease in the relative risk of one sector must mean an increase in the relative risk of another and vice versa. This means that as well as changes in the likelihood (probability), better and more comprehensive data, better modelling of impacts, and better understanding of actual oil amounts carried change the risk for individual sectors. The sector share percentages will also change in relation to other sectors’ changing share of risk. Changes from 2012 to 2015 can be seen in Table 1 below.

Use of the Shoreline Impact Basis to calculate sector share Two different impact themes were explored in MOSRA 15 to determine the sector contributions to New Zealand’s oil pollution risk – a shoreline impact basis and an open water basis. The shoreline impact basis continued and improved on the methodology used in the previous MOSRA, while the open water basis was a new addition to the methodology.

It was considered important to find out whether the risk in the open sea could be modelled. The work revealed, however, that the environmental values that are used in the assessment of risk are not as well developed for the open sea basis as they are for the shoreline. Reliable data on impacts and how to measure them is not available to the same degree as it is for the shoreline; as such it is not considered possible to use the open sea results in this iteration of the model when looking at overall sector risk. In the years to come, Maritime New Zealand will continue to develop this aspect of the modelling. Therefore, it was decided to continue using the shoreline impact basis as it provides the most accurate picture of contribution to oil pollution risk.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

4

148

Table 1: Comparison of MOSRA sector share percentages: 2012 and 2015 Sector share % Sector share % Sector 1 % change 2012 Sector report MOSRA 15 Shoreline

Foreign Tankers 44 60.6 +16.6

Domestic Tankers 12.5 19.6 +7.1 Foreign Passenger and 26 -16.6 Cargo 9.4 Domestic Passenger and 11 -1.6 Cargo 9.4

NZ Fishing Vessels 2.5 0.9 -1.6

Offshore Oil and Gas 4 0.03 -3.97

Note: the percentages in the MOSRA 15 column do not add up to 100 due to rounding differences caused by the offshore oil and gas sector share.

The main reasons for the changes are a significantly improved data set around volumes and types of oil carried and improved modelling of wind, currents and the effects of temperature.

With the exception of the offshore oil and gas sector we propose to use the shoreline risk percentages from MOSRA 15 as the basis of the sector share calculations for the new Levy.

Detailed analysis of the differences between the MOSRA 15 sector contributions and previous risk assessments can be found in the full document Marine Oil Spill Risk Assessment 2015 and its associated interactive web tool, which are available on the Maritime NZ website at: maritimenz.govt.nz/Environmental/Marine-oil-spill-risk-assessment/

Bunker fuel carried by tankers The per-sector risk assessment, as determined by MOSRA 15, is slightly different to the sector percentages proposed to be used to calculate each sector’s share of the Levy. This is because an adjustment has been made to the risk percentages to acknowledge that the risk of carrying bunker fuel is the same, irrespective of whether it is being carried by a tanker or a passenger vessel.

This approach is the same as that used in the current Levy. Using MOSRA 15 data, the risk for bunker fuel carried by domestic tankers has been combined with the risk for domestic passenger and cargo vessels, and the risk for bunker fuel carried by foreign tankers has been combined with the risk for foreign passenger and cargo vessels.

Segregated ballast water tanks In November 1993, the non-mandatory IMO assembly resolution 774(18) recommended to States that oil tankers fitted with segregated ballast water tanks should have their tonnage certificates annotated with an additional (lower) tonnage figure to be used for the purpose of charging fees. This resolution was based on an original resolution issued back in 1977 – res.A388(10).

The original IMO resolution (1977) was intended to encourage the use of segregated ballast in tankers for environmental reasons by generating a comparative advantage in fees charged for those tankers with the segregated arrangement. In the time that has elapsed since the resolution was introduced,

1 These percentages were amended by Cabinet subsequent to the Levy consultation in 2012 so differ from the sector share used to calculate the current Levy

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

5 149

the majority of tankers have segregated ballast. Therefore, using reduced gross tonnage for the purposes of a levy does not provide any comparative advantage.

The current Levy is charged on foreign tankers based on their reduced gross tonnage, which is calculated in line with resolution 774(18).

It is proposed that in a new Levy Order, it is specified that the gross tonnage of a tanker, and not the reduced gross tonnage, is used to calculate the Levy payable.

As the Oil Pollution Levy is levied based on a desired quantum of funds from a given sector, whether gross tonnage or reduced gross tonnage is used does not affect the total that is aiming to be levied from the sector. However, it does affect the rate at which the Levy will be set, as the per tonne Levy rate calculated based on reduced gross tonnage will be higher than one calculated based on gross tonnage.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

6

150

Components of the new levy We propose two components for a new Levy:

 A Baseline Levy; and

 A Capability Levy.

Baseline Levy - $5.17 million per year The current Base Levy was set at rates to raise a target of $4.6 million per year, to maintain response capability at 2013 levels.

For the six-year period 2016/17 to 2021/22, the Baseline levy sought is $5.17 million per year. The Baseline Levy provides for the on-going operational services currently funded by the Base Levy, including the following capability elements:

 8.2 FTE staff at MPRS to undertake compliance, readiness and response activities at current levels2;

 Logistics and maintenance support for the current equipment and material stockpiles (booms, skimmers, pumps, storage tanks, small vessels, vehicles, support systems);

 Regional training to support Regional Councils in provision of Tier 2 readiness and response capability;

 A regional exercise programme to support the provision of Tier 2 readiness and response capability;

 Provision of the current services by the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team3, and

 $650,000 per year of depreciation funding to meet current depreciation costs and support a very limited procurement programme.

The Baseline Levy component, as proposed, does not  fund the vast majority of the asset replacement required to sustain the current equipment- based response capabilities4;

 fund the services developed in the current period (using the capability component of the current levy and Crown funding), such as underwater plume and gas cloud modelling, aerial observation and aerial dispersant capability, National Response Team training and additional compliance costs5;

 fund any capability enhancements, developments or improvements; proposals in this regard are covered under the Capability Levy component options.

2 The Baseline Levy funding includes maintaining the 1.5 FTE positions within MPRS that were established under the ‘capability’ component of the current Levy, and an annual increase in contract and salary costs of 2% for the years 2013 to 2016 and 2016 to 2019. This is to cover increases in contracts (such as the oiled wildlife contract), lease increases which are subject to indexation, and the increased costs of staff which were not factored into the baseline funding in the previous Levy, and to also address these costs in the future years of the new levy. 3 Capability is provided by Massey University under contract; this contract expires June 2016 and will need to be renewed, likely at higher cost – see Capability Levy proposals. 4 Equipment and material replacement is covered under the Capability Levy component. 5 Funding for these elements is contained in the Capability Levy proposals with full technical details of the elements in the Capability Plan.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

7 151

These components have been excluded from the Baseline Levy proposal so it is clear how the proposed Baseline Levy ($5.17 million per year) compares to the current levy baseline component ($4.5 million per year)

One consequence of this approach is that this levy component on its own will not sustain the current 2015/16 overall capability level. This is due to the need to replace significant amounts of current equipment in the next few years, and to the ending of the current equipment and capability levy components on 30 June 2016.

In order to maintain current (2015/16) capability, it is necessary to fund an asset replacement programme and to provide funding to sustain the improvements made using the current Capability Levy. The first option presented under the Capability Levy component proposals below addresses this issue. Further options offer proposals to incrementally increase and/or enhance capability to address the capability growth needs discussed earlier.

A detailed breakdown of the makeup of the Baseline Levy is included as Appendix 1.

Capability Plan The Capability Plan sets out the detail of how to deliver the Strategy. It considers the findings of MOSRA 15, was informed by lessons from the Rena incident and response, lessons from international incidents, and trends in shipping. It also addresses the need for significant asset replacement in the current equipment inventory and the sustainment of certain additional capabilities established in the last three years. The plan was developed using expert technical input as well as dialogue with equipment and service suppliers.

A copy of the full Capability Plan is available at: maritimenz.govt.nz/consultation/OPL

Summary of the Capability Plan The Capability Plan addresses three key matters; asset replacement (for equipment – including dispersant – that is at or beyond end-of life); capability sustainment (for items that are currently funded through additional time-bound levy and Crown appropriation); and capability development and enhancement (focused on filling in current gaps or shortfall in capability).

The key matters are discussed in the Capability Plan across five components: training, exercises, organisation, people, and equipment. Although discussed separately, the components are inter- related. The components are focused as follows:

 Equipment - the replacement and possible enhancement and distribution of response assets (physical equipment and chemical dispersants) to implement or facilitate a response to a marine oil spill;

 Training - the preparation of response personnel;

 Exercises - the use of simulated reality to mould responders into a cohesive and effective response unit and to test plans, personnel, and training;

 Organisation - the internal systems, processes, and knowledge that support the MPRS to deliver its services in a sustainable and well-informed manner, and

 People - additional staff necessary to undertake the increased volume and complexity of readiness and response activities resulting from the components of the Capability Plan in the areas of planning, auditing, monitoring, training, exercising, advising and supporting on environmental matters, coordinating the National Response Team, and managing equipment.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

8 152

The Capability Plan provides comprehensive details on the methodology used to develop options and proposals. Operational prioritisation was undertaken with selection of the lowest-cost option that woulddeliver the required capability.

During the gap analysis, Maritime New Zealand decided to take no further action on the purchase of far – offshore – capable equipment because of its high capital cost, the limited maritime resources to support such systems, and its limited effectiveness in weather common in the New Zealand. Therefore, the Capability Plan relies on the availability of coastal equipment and suitable offshore conditions to provide an offshore response.

Investment Drivers There are three key investment drivers in the overall plan;

 The need to replace assets to maintain current capability. MPRS was established 20 years ago and significant parts of the current equipment inventory are obsolete or will become obsolete during the 2016 – 2019 period. As reserves have been reduced over time, there is very limited depreciation funding to meet the costs of replacing the current inventory;

 The need to sustain improvements made in the last three years. From 2013 to 2015, the Government provided limited funding that enabled contracts to be put in place for gas plume modelling, aerial observation and dispersant application capabilities. The Capability Plan seeks funding to continue these capabilities.

 The need to address gaps and improve and enhance key capabilities. The revised Strategy identifies the need for capability changes and improvements.

Objective and Benefits of the Capability Plan The objective of the Capability Plan is to ensure an efficient, effective and timely response to marine oil spill incidents when they occur. The desired outcome is the ability to reinstate the pre-incident state as much as possible and as quickly as possible at the lowest possible disruption to communities and the lowest possible cost to the Crown. The strategic benefits are:

 Limiting risks to health and safety for those on board a stricken vessel or installation, for example crew, passengers and those involved in the response such as people involved with the clean up or retrieval of hazardous substances;

 Limiting the damage to the environment caused by oil and other hazardous goods and substances. The Rena had over 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil on board. Following the grounding, over 400 birds were cared for at the oiled wildlife treatment and rehabilitation centre and 377 were released back into their environment;

 Limiting disruption to shipping activity, such as blocked shipping routes or port areas, and the economic benefits that flow from such activity;

 Limiting damage to New Zealand’s reputation as a safe place to visit and travel and as a country that takes seriously its commitments to a range of international environmental conventions;

 Minimising the overall costs stemming from the response and recovery phases;

 Ensuring effective management of liability and maximising what is recoverable from responsible parties;

 Ensuring an effective transition to the recovery, restoration and rehabilitation phases of oil spill management.

International studies show that the direct costs of the clean-up for an oil spill vary greatly depending on a multitude of factors including oil type, spill volume, location, weather and the response methods

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

9

153

used. The most expensive element of the clean-up is the activity at the shoreline, which means response measures that prevent or reduce the oil reaching the shoreline have a very high benefit.

The economic, environmental and social costs (as opposed to direct clean-up costs) are potentially very large and again, are most likely to be high where the oil reaches the shorelines and estuaries.

Independent Peer Review of Capability Plan The Capability Plan is very comprehensive with detailed discussion on technical and operational matters in relation to oil spill readiness and response. Development took a considerable period of time and included an independent, expert review of the work.

The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation (ITOPF6), undertook the review. As an industry funded, not-for profit organisation that has worked on over 700 oil spills world-wide since the 1970s, including attendance at the Rena response, ITOPF were uniquely placed to undertake this work. The review was comprehensive and included consideration of background material - the Strategy, MOSRA 15, Thompson Clarke Review, Rena Review, National Marine Oil Spill Response Plan - as well as significant interchanges with Maritime NZ and MPRS staff.

The full ITOPF review report is available at: maritimenz.govt.nz/consultation/OPL

The report raised recommendations to consider in respect to the Capability Plan as well as some matters where ITOPF considers that more effort should be invested. Overall, ITOPF were strongly supportive of the approach taken and the conclusions reached and consider that full implementation of the Capability Plan will enable delivery on the Strategy.

A note on ‘capability’ The term capability is used throughout these proposals in a number of different contexts. Capability can be thought of as comprising a number of components – people, skills and knowledge, experience and currency and equipment. To achieve and maintain a certain level of capability may require some or all of these components. Different aspects of capability are addressed by different proposed components of the Levy.

 The Baseline Levy in part covers business as usual capability costs, for example the current training, exercising and equipment needs to maintain New Zealand’s current level of capability to respond to marine oil spills.

 The increases to the Baseline Levy are in part to cover costs that are met by the current levy capability element but that will cease in July 2016, for example the costs of the 1.5 additional staff established at the last review.

 The new Capability Levy will give effect to recommendations from the Capability Plan which sets out the equipment, training and resources needed to deliver on the goals of the revised Strategy.

Capability Levy Options Taking the Capability Plan into account, we propose a number of options for the Capability Levy component. The starting point is a minimal option to maintain current 2015/16 capabilities overall; three more options then build on the current capability incrementally and progressively. Each option details what the capability sustainment or improvements are, why these are considered appropriate and what the benefits would be.

6 ITOPF – International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation; the leading international marine ship pollution response advisors. See http://www.itopf.com/

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

10

154

Stretching and Scaling of Options The Capability Plan was originally developed to set out how Maritime NZ could build the capability to fully deliver the Strategy over the three-year period from 2016 to 2019. Making substantial capability improvements in such a short space of time would have required a very significant investment over and above the funding required to maintain current levels of capability.

We instead propose that any sustainment and improvement options are all based around a six-year growth path (with a mid-point review), ‘stretching’ the implementation period and reducing the annual impact of the funding requirements.

We also recognise that capability funding can be scaled to different levels. As a minimum, sustaining the current 2015/16 level of readiness and response is essential. This is presented as Option A.

Further options are presented that would increase capability above current levels; operationally we would seek to achieve the full capabilities detailed in the Capability Plan – the most expensive option presented but incremental steps in between this and the minimum are also detailed. The following four options for the Capability Levy component have been developed (all options are in addition to the Baseline Levy component - $5.17M per year):

 A - Capability Sustainment - $1.356M per year

 B – Capability Growth 1 - $2.371M per year

 C – Capability Growth 2 - $2.879M per year

 D – Full Capability Plan - $3.682M per year Each Capability Levy option is explained in the following section in more detail, and a general overview of all four options is available at Appendix 10. Further, for each option there is a separate appendix which includes a table showing rates and sector share. The rates are per unit levied (e.g. gross tonnage of a vessel in some cases, and per tonne of oil carried (persistent or non-persistent) in others. It is also important to note, when looking at the tables, that the frequency of levies varies across sectors. For example, international vessels are levied per visit, while domestic vessels are levied annually.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

11

155

Proposed options for a new Levy The following section combines the proposed Baseline Levy and Capability Levy components to show four options for the total Levy. Variations come from the different Capability Levy component options. Comparisons are provided showing the proposed Levy rates that would result from each option as compared to the current Levy rate, as well as examples for what individual vessels may expect to pay under each of the proposed options.

The options are made up of the following components:

Option A: Baseline funding + Capability Levy (Capability Sustainment)

Option B: Baseline funding + Capability Levy (Capability Growth 1)

Option C: Baseline funding + Capability Levy (Capability Growth 2)

Option D: Baseline funding + Capability Levy (Full Capability Plan) The graph below shows the quantum of each proposed option, in terms of a per year amount, and how this is made up from the three elements.

Cost of proposed options 10000

9000

8000

7000 3682 2879 2371 ($000) 6000 1356 year 5000 Capability levy per 4000 Baseline levy levy 3000 5170 5170 5170 5170 Total 2000

1000

0 Option AOption BOption COption D

An overview of the different levels of capability delivered by each of these options, and cost, is available at Appendix 10. Maritime NZ is interested in your views as to the best option for funding oil spill response capability overall and what variations, additions or subtractions might be considered. Details of how to submit your views are available on page 32 of this document.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

12

156

Option A - Capability Sustainment ($6.526 million per year) This option is comprised of the following two components, over a period of six years:  Baseline Levy - $5.17 million per year; and

 Capability Levy- $1.356 million per year.

Total levy: $6.526 million per year Option A delivers the current level of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response capabilities as it includes asset replacement and capability sustainment funding. As it is focused on maintaining current levels of response capability, there is no capability enhancement element to this option.

Asset Replacement  Obsolete shoreline, in-shore and near-shore booms are replaced;

 Skimmers, pumps and storage systems are updated;

 Vehicle and vessel ancillaries replaced;

 Dispersant stocks are fully replaced.

Capability Sustainment  The contract for sub-sea plume modelling is retained;

 The contract for gas cloud modelling is retained;

 Contracts for aerial observation and aerial dispersant application capabilities are maintained;

 The current level of funding for the National Response Team is sustained.

Capability delivered by Option A Option A would allow MPRS to deliver an effective and efficient response in the event of smaller spills, with a focus on spills in sheltered waters and areas close to the shore. This option includes augmentation for major spill responses through international support arrangements.

The detailed elements and costs for this option are at Appendix 2

Note: the costs indicated in Appendix 2 are the planned annual costs of operational and capital expenditure for this option. To arrive at the per year figure above, these costs were averaged across the three years and depreciation funding, some of which is already included in the baseline, was factored in.

A note on rounding In the tables below, the proposed rates given have been rounded to 2 decimal places for ease of comprehension.

Full rates and estimated annual revenue for this option are available at Appendix 3. The percentage change for each sector has been calculated based on the full rate.

The rounding decisions will cause some minor differences between the rate increase as described in this table, and the percentage increase.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

13

157

Comparison of current and proposed Levy rates Option A - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil - Change per MT of oil - per visit per visit

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.37 $0.39 7%

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.08 $0.17 101.8% oil

Option A - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil , Change per MT of oil - per year per year

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.91 $0.46 -49.2%

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.13 $0.47 275.1% oil

Option A - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per GT, per port Change per GT - per port visit visit

Foreign Passenger, Cargo and $0.01 $0.003 -67.8% Tanker Bunker Fuel

Current total levy rate Option A- Proposed total Sector Change per GT - per year levy rate per GT, per year

Domestic Passenger , Cargo and $3.71 $3.32 -10.5% Tanker Bunker Fuel

NZ Fishing Vessels $1.64 $0.79 -52.1%

Option A -Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per site, per Change per site, per year year

Platforms $9,170 $9,170 0%

FPSOS $105,000 $105,000 0%

Pipelines $9,114 $9,114 0%

Exploration wells $8,951 $8,951 0%

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

14

158

Individual vessel examples

Current Levy Option A Increase or MT of oil Foreign tankers: example charge calculations Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in carried oil, per visit per visit charge

Vessel 1 37,959 $13,980 $14,964 $983 Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 124,843 $45,980 $49,215 $3,235

Foreign Tankers Vessel 1 96,381 $7,951 $16,045 $8,094 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 128,310 $10,586 $21,361 $10,775

Current Levy Option A Increase or Domestic tankers: example charge calculations MT of oil Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in oil, per year per year charge

Vessel 1 201,600 $182,992 $92,993 -$89,999 Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 294,000 $266,864 $135,614 -$131,248

Domestic Tankers Vessel 1 816,000 $103,142 $386,911 $283,769 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 894,817 $113,105 $424,283 $311,178

Current Levy Option A Increase or Foreign passenger and cargo vessels: GT of vessel Port visits Estimated total Estimated total decrease in example charge calculations charge charge charge

Vessel 1 121,878 12 $14,625 $4,703 -$9,922 Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 50,657 3 $1,520 $488 -$1030

Increase or Domestic passenger, cargo and fishing vessels: Current Levy Option A GT of vessel decrease in example charge calculations Charge per year Charge per year charge

Vessel 1 12,735 $47,200 $42,264 -$4,935 Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 22,365 $82,891 $74,224 -$8,666

Vessel 1 4,407 $7,228 $3,459 -$3,768 NZ Fishing Vessels Vessel 2 323 $530 $253 -$276

Full tables of how these example rates have been calculated are included as Appendix 3.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

15

159

Option B – Capability Growth 1 ($7.541 million per year) This option is comprised of the following two components over a period of six years:

 Baseline Levy- $5.17 million per year; and

 Capability Levy - $2.371 million per year

Total levy: $7.541 million per year Option B delivers the current level of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response capabilities by addressing all the matters under Option A plus making a limited improvement in capability over time.

Asset Replacement – as per Option A

Capability Sustainment – as per Option A

Capability Improvements  Adding a new ‘coastal’ response capability with equipment for on-water oil recovery farther from shore than currently capable;

 Adding more systems for near-shore and in-shore on-water response;

 Adding a new, larger workboat more capable of operation farther from shore;

 Increasing the amount of training and exercises at the national, regional and local levels;

 Meeting the expected contract cost increases for the renewal of the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team contract;

 Strengthening the MPRS and Maritime NZ organisational capacity to manage and operate the new capability by adding one FTE position focused on equipment and logistics;

 Developing and implementing a Vessel of Opportunity capability for a small number of vessels to improve readiness and availability of commercial operators to support spill response operations – especially farther from shore;7

 Resourcing additional international engagement on technical and environmental matters to improve knowledge, standards and relationships.

Capability delivered by Option B Option B delivers capability growth, the capacity to respond in the in-shore and near-shore environment, and a new capacity to respond in the coastal region. This option provides an improved ability to prevent oil from reaching the shoreline, thus reducing impacts and saving costs. Availability contracts generate significant capability at minimal cost when compared to owning and operating assets directly, and an additional FTE allows efficient management of enhanced equipment and material.

The detailed elements and costs for this option are at Appendix 4.

7 Funding for this element is partially obtained by scaling back the expenditure on aerial observation and aerial dispersant contracts.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

16

160

A note on rounding In the tables below, the proposed rates given have been rounded to 2 decimal places for ease of comprehension.

Full rates and estimated annual revenue for this option are available at Appendix 5. The percentage change for each sector has been calculated based on the full rate.

The rounding decisions will cause some minor differences between the rate increase as described in this table, and the percentage increase.

Comparison of current and proposed Levy rates Option B - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil - Change per MT of oil - per visit per visit

Foreign Tankers $0.37 $0.46 24.5% Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.08 $0.19 134.7% oil

Option B - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil , Change per MT of oil - per year per year

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.91 $0.54 -40.9%

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.13 $0.55 336.4% oil

Option B - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per GT, per port Change per GT - per port visit visit

Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $0.01 $0.004 -62.6%

Current total levy rate Option B- Proposed total Sector Change per GT - per year levy rate per GT, per year

Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $3.71 $3.86 4.2%

NZ Fishing Vessels $1.64 $0.91 -44.3%

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

17

161

Option B -Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per site, per Change per site, per year year

Platforms $9,169 $9,170 0%

FPSOS $105,000 $105,000 0%

Pipelines $9,114 $9,114 0%

Exploration wells $8,951 $8,951 0%

Individual vessel examples

Current Levy Option B Increase or MT of oil Foreign tankers: example charge calculations Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in carried oil, per visit per visit charge

Vessel 1 37,959 $13,980 $17,407 $3,427 Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 124,843 $45,980 $57,251 $11,272

Foreign Tankers Vessel 1 96,381 $7,951 $18,665 $10,714 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 128,310 $10,586 $24,849 $14,263

Current Levy Option B Increase or Domestic tankers: example charge calculations MT of oil Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in oil, per year per year charge

Vessel 1 201,600 $182,992 $108,177 -$74,814 Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 294,000 $266,864 $157,759 -$109,104

Domestic Tankers Vessel 1 816,000 $103,142 $450,092 $346,949 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 894,817 $113,105 $493,566 $380,461

Current Levy Option B Increase or Foreign passenger and cargo vessels: GT of vessel Port visits Estimated total Estimated total decrease in example charge calculations charge charge charge

Vessel 1 121,878 12 $14,625 $5,471 -$9,154 Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 50,657 3 $1,520 $568 -$951

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

18

162

Increase or Domestic passenger, cargo and fishing vessels: Current Levy Option B GT of vessel decrease in example charge calculations Charge per year Charge per year charge

Vessel 1 12,735 $47,200 $49,166 $1,966 Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 22,365 $82,891 $86,345 $3,453

Vessel 1 4,407 $7,228 $4,024 -$3,203 NZ Fishing Vessels Vessel 2 323 $530 $294 -$234

Full tables of how these example rates have been calculated are included as Appendix 5.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

19

163

Option C – Capability Growth 2 ($8.049 million per year) This option is comprised of the following, over a period of six years:

 Baseline Levy - $5.17 million per year; and

 Capability Levy - $2.879 million per year

Total levy: $8.049 million per year Option C delivers the current level of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response capabilities by addressing all the matters under Option A plus making a moderate improvement in capability over time.

Asset Replacement – as per Option A.

Capability Sustainment – as per Option A

Capability Improvements – as per Option B plus  Equipment and materials that are reaching their end of life are replaced sooner;

 More systems for in-shore response are added;

 Renewal of the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team contract, supporting a slight enhancement to the contracted capability;

 Strengthening the MPRS and Maritime NZ organisational capacity to manage and operate the new capability by adding an additional one FTE position focused on operations and planning;

 Restoring the funding for aerial observation and aerial dispersant contracts that was scaled under Option B.

Capability delivered by Option C This option delivers the capability of Option B, plus: greater capacity to respond in the in-shore and near-shore environment, further improved ability to prevent oil from reaching the shoreline (thus further reducing impacts and saving costs), and improved oiled wildlife response capability. An extra FTE improves operations and planning to support better involvement of regional and local authorities and industry. The slight increase in per year funding from option B also allows for earlier equipment and material replacement, reducing obsolescence risks, i.e. capability improvements occur earlier in the funding cycle.

The detailed elements and costs for this option are at Appendix 6.

A note on rounding In the tables below, the proposed rates given have been rounded to 2 decimal places for ease of comprehension.

Full rates and estimated annual revenue for this option are available at Appendix 7. The percentage change for each sector has been calculated based on the full rate.

The rounding decisions will cause some minor differences between the rate increase as described in this table, and the percentage increase.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

20

164

Comparison of current and proposed Levy rates Option C- Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil - Change per MT of oil - per visit per visit

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.37 $0.49 33.3%

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.08 $0.21 151.2% oil

Option C - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil , Change per MT of oil - per year per year

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.91 $0.57 -36.7%

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.13 $0.59 367.0% oil

Option C - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per GT, per port Change per GT - per port visit visit

Foreign Passenger, Cargo and $0.01 $0.004 -60.0% Tanker Bunker Fuel

Current total levy rate Option C- Proposed total Sector Change per GT - per year levy rate per GT, per year

Domestic Passenger , Cargo and $3.71 $4.13 11.5% Tanker Bunker Fuel

NZ Fishing Vessels $1.64 $0.98 -40.4%

Option C -Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per site, per Change per site, per year year

Platforms $9,169 $9,170 0%

FPSOS $105,000 $105,000 0%

Pipelines $9,114 $9,114 0%

Exploration wells $8,951 $8,951 0%

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

21

165

Individual vessel examples

Current Levy Option C Increase or MT of oil Foreign tankers: example charge calculations Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in carried oil, per visit per visit charge

Vessel 1 37,959 $13,980 $18,630 $4,650 Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 124,843 $45,980 $61,273 $15,294

Foreign Tankers Vessel 1 96,381 $7,951 $19,976 $12,025 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 128,310 $10,586 $26,594 $16,009

Current Levy Option C Increase or Domestic tankers: example charge calculations MT of oil Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in oil, per year per year charge

Vessel 1 201,600 $182,992 $115,778 -$67,213 Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 294,000 $266,864 $168,844 -$98,019

Domestic Tankers Vessel 1 816,000 $103,142 $481,712 $378,570 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 894,817 $113,105 $528,241 $415,136

Current Levy Increase or Foreign passenger and cargo vessels: Option C GT of vessel Port visits Estimated total decrease in example charge calculations Charge per port charge charge

Vessel 1 121,878 12 $14,625 $5,855 -$8,769 Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 50,657 3 $1,520 $608 -$911

Increase or Domestic passenger, cargo and fishing vessels: Current Levy Option C GT of vessel decrease in example charge calculations Charge per year Charge per year charge

Vessel 1 12,735 $47,200 $52,620 $5,420 Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 22,365 $82,891 $92,411 $9,519

Vessel 1 4,407 $7,228 $4,307 -$2,920 NZ Fishing Vessels Vessel 2 323 $530 $315 -$214

Full tables of how these example rates have been calculated are included as Appendix 7.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

22 166

Option D – Full Capability Plan ($8.852 million per year) This option is comprised of the following, over a period of six years:  Baseline Levy - $5.17 million per year; and

 Capability Levy - $3.682 million per year.

Total levy: an average of $8.852 million per year Option D ensures that the current level of regulatory, compliance and readiness and response ability is maintained by addressing all the matters under Option A plus making a significant improvement in capability over time. This option implements all the recommendations of the Capability Plan by the end of the six year period.

Asset Replacement – as per Option A.

Capability Sustainment – as per Option A

Capability Improvements – as per Option C plus:  Adding a second coastal response system for increased capacity for on-water oil recovery farther from shore than currently capable;

 Adding additional dispersant stocks to the current holdings;

 Adding capability for dispersant effectiveness monitoring;

 Significant increase in National Response Team training;

 Enhancing the Vessel of Opportunity capability by building it up more quickly and involving more vessels, further improving readiness and availability of commercial operators to support spill response operations – especially farther from shore;

 Equipment and materials that are reaching their end of life are replaced sooner;

 Supporting a further enhancement to the contracted capability under the renewal of the National Oiled Wildlife Response Team contract;

 Strengthening the MPRS and Maritime NZ organisational capacity to manage and operate the new capability by adding an additional one FTE position focused on environmental matters;

 Building capability earlier in the funding cycle.

Capability delivered by Option D This option delivers the capability of Option C, plus a further improved ability to prevent oil from reaching the shoreline, thus further reducing impacts and saving costs. Option D delivers the ability to apply more dispersant for longer before needing to source additional supplies from overseas. Readiness and resilience in National Response Team is improved – there will be more people with greater skills to sustain a longer or larger incident more easily. More vessels will be pre-arranged, trained and available for supplementing a response effort. There will be an improved oiled wildlife response capability and a significant improvement in environmental advice, support and analysis capability for readiness and response work. The increase in per year funding from Option C would allow for earlier capability build up as well as a greater level of overall capability.

The detailed elements and costs for this option are at Appendix 8.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

23

167

A note on rounding In the tables below, the proposed rates given have been rounded to 2 decimal places for ease of comprehension.

Full rates and estimated annual revenue for this option are available at Appendix 9. The percentage change for each sector has been calculated based on the full rate.

The rounding decisions will cause some minor differences between the rate increase as described in this table, and the percentage increase.

Comparison of current and proposed Levy rates Option D- Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil - Change per MT of oil - per visit per visit

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.37 $0.54 47.1%

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.08 $0.23 177.3% oil

Option D - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per MT of oil , Change per MT of oil - per year per year

Domestic Tankers $0.91 $0.63 -30.2% Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent $0.13 $0.65 415.5% oil

Option D - Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per GT, per port Change per GT - per port visit visit

Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $0.01 $0.005 -55.8%

Current total levy rate Option D- Proposed total Sector Change per GT - per year levy rate per GT, per year

Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $3.71 $4.56 23.1%

NZ Fishing Vessels $1.64 $1.08 -34.2%

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

24

168

Option D -Proposed total Current total levy rate Sector levy rate per site, per Change per site, per year year

Platforms $9,169 $9,170 0%

FPSOS $105,000 $105,000 0%

Pipelines $9,114 $9,114 0%

Exploration wells $8,951 $8,951 0%

Individual vessel examples

Current Levy Option D Increase or MT of oil Foreign tankers: example charge calculations Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in carried oil, per visit per visit charge

Vessel 1 37,959 $13,980 $20,563 $6,583 Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 124,843 $45,980 $67,631 $21,652

Foreign Tankers Vessel 1 96,381 $7,951 $22,049 $14,098 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 128,310 $10,586 $29,354 $18,768

Current Levy Option D Increase or Domestic tankers: example charge calculations MT of oil Charge per MT of Charge per MT of oil, decrease in oil, per year per year charge

Vessel 1 201,600 $182,992 $127,793 -$55,199 Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil Vessel 2 294,000 $266,864 $186,364 -$80,498

Domestic Tankers Vessel 1 816,000 $103,142 $531,697 $428,555 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil Vessel 2 894,817 $113,105 $583,053 $469,949

Current Levy Increase or Foreign passenger and cargo vessels: Option D GT of vessel Port visits Estimated total decrease in example charge calculations Charge per port charge charge

Vessel 1 121,878 12 $14,625 $6,463 -$8,162 Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 50,657 3 $1,520 $671 -$848

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

25

169

Increase or Domestic passenger, cargo and fishing vessels: Current Levy Option D GT of vessel decrease in example charge calculations Charge per year Charge per year charge

Vessel 1 12,735 $47,200 $58,080 $10,881 Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel Vessel 2 22,365 $82,891 $102,000 $19,109

Vessel 1 4,407 $7,228 $4,754 -$2,473 NZ Fishing Vessels Vessel 2 323 $530 $348 -$181

Full tables of how these example rates have been calculated are included as Appendix 9.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

26

170

Comparison of options The table below compares the total levy rate that would result from each option against the current total rate.

Comparison of all options against current Levy rates

Current total levy rate Sector Option A Option B Option C Option D per MT of oil - per visit

Foreign Tankers Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil $0.37 $0.39 $0.46 $0.49 $0.54

Foreign Tankers $0.08 $0.17 $0.19 $0.21 $0.23 Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil

Current total levy rate Sector Option A Option B Option C Option D per MT of oil - per year

Domestic Tankers $0.91 $0.46 $0.54 $0.57 $0.63 Oil carried as cargo: persistent oil

Domestic Tankers Oil carried as cargo: non-persistent oil $0.13 $0.47 $0.55 $0.59 $0.65

Current total levy rate Sector Option A Option B Option C Option D per GT - per visit

Foreign Passenger, Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $0.01 $0.003 $0.004 $0.004 $0.005

Current total levy rate Sector Option A Option B Option C Option D per GT - per year

Domestic Passenger , Cargo and Tanker Bunker Fuel $3.71 $3.32 $3.86 $4.13 $4.56

NZ Fishing Vessels $1.64 $0.79 $0.91 $0.98 $1.08

Current total levy rate Sector Option A Option B Option C Option D per site, per year

Platforms $9,170 $9,170 $9,170 $9,170 $9,170

FPSOS $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000

Pipelines $9,114 $9,114 $9,114 $9,114 $9,114

Exploration wells $8,951 $8,951 $8,951 $8.951 $8,951

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

27 171

Benefits delivered by each option

The table on the following page summarises the benefits delivered under each option to New Zealand in terms of capability at responding to marine oil spills by the end of the six year period.

Key: √ The option fully delivers the benefit √ The option substantially delivers the benefit The option partially delivers the benefit √ The option delivers a limited benefit √ The option does not deliver the benefit ×

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

28 Option Option Option Option Spill response objectives Achieved by… A B C D

The current equipment and capabilities to respond Out-of-date equipment is replaced , current contracts are maintained (aerial response, to oil spills is maintained modelling), current staffing and training levels are retained √ √ √ √

Sub-sea oil plumes and gas clouds can be modelled, to predict where oil or gas may go and so support more effective measures to prevent it from reaching the shoreline √ √ √ √ Oil spill control agents can be used to disperse oil before it reaches the New Zealand shoreline through aerial dispersant application reducing the costs of the response by preventing or √ √ reducing shoreline impact √ √ New Zealand's in-shore and near-shore areas are Oil can be recovered on-water in shallow areas close to the shore, preventing oil from reaching protected in the event of a spill so reducing the √ √ consequences of the spill and reducing response the shore reducing the costs of the response √ √ costs overall Tracking of oil spills and the effects of dispersant through tracking buoys/fluorometry allows response measures to be better tailored to the specific circumstances × × × √

Additional stocks of dispersant allow for longer periods of continuous operations before relying

on overseas stockpiles, enabling more rapid dispersal of oil for dispersible oils, reducing the × × × 172 volumes that might reach the shoreline √

National Response Team Training is delivered at 2013 levels maintaining a baseline capability for major, national level spills √ √ √ √ New Zealand's oil spill response is effective and National Response Team Training is enhanced to meet the Goals and Objectives of the revised efficient so reducing spill impacts on people and National Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy giving improved readiness for response and more × × × the environment and reducing overall spill response effective spill responses at the national level √ costs Incident Management System maintenance and improvements support effective response √ planning and efficient financial management of large-scale, enduring responses √ √ √

Coastal on-water containment and recovery systems enable the management oil spills farther Oil spills can be managed farther out to sea, close from shore in less-sheltered waters and even offshore in benign weather conditions reducing × √ √ √ to the source so better protecting the shoreline the costs of the response by preventing or reducing shoreline impact from spill impact and reducing response costs Contracts with ‘vessels of opportunity’ provide the ability to deploy equipment far from the overall- shore when necessary significantly increasing latent capacity to undertake response measures × √ √ away from the shoreline √ Technical and scientific knowledge about oil spill Additional positions established supporting the improvement of international relationships and response is improved supporting more effective core technical and scientific knowledge plus maintenance of new equipment items improving × √ √ responses skills and knowledge and thus response effectiveness √

29 173

Other matters

Consideration of a performance-based Levy During the last review of the New Zealand Oil Pollution Levies Order, a suggestion was made that the oil pollution levy contributions could be based on individual levy payers’ performance, or that there should be a performance-based component.

Given that, in theory, a performance-based levy has merit (not least because it aligns with a “risk based” regulatory framework where good performance is rewarded) this was investigated by Maritime NZ as a possible policy direction. On balance our assessment is that the potential benefits of an individual performance – based levy are very much outweighed by the complexity, cost, and uncertainty associated with such an approach.

On the basis of our analysis, which is summarised below, Maritime NZ does not support an individualised performance-based levy.

There are particular features to the oil pollution levy that are important to note as context to our analysis. Firstly, the levy needs to generate a specific minimum amount of revenue each year. The amount of revenue required, year on year, informs the levy rates. Given the revenue quantum is fixed, any decrease for one operator (or a number of operators) on the basis of performance has to therefore be balanced or offset by an increase in levy rates for another operator (or a number of operators). In effect this means that there would be winners and losers, which in our view would not be fair.

Further, under the current order, levy rates are fixed until such time as the Order is revised through the usual regulation making process. A performance-based levy approach would require levy rates to be moved up or down at a level of regularity that could respond in a timely way to good or poor performance. This could be annually, or every six months – but the more ‘dynamic’ the levy in terms of an ability to charge more or less, the more complex and uncertain the system becomes for levy payers.

A performance-based levy system would need to rely on a set of credible and defendable performance criteria. Among other measures, those criteria could reasonably include past performance in terms of the number and volume of oil spills. There are however very few oil spills by levy payers (and the majority do not have spills) which could make it difficult to distinguish one operator’s performance (and therefore levy contribution) from another’s. It is also the case that there is an obligation to report any oil spill. If operators were penalised through a higher levy for each and every spill, this could dis- incentivise spill reporting.

In terms of setting initial performance based levies, each levy payer would need to be assessed against the established criteria. Such assessment of over 400 individual operators would need to be conducted by Maritime NZ (as the administrator of the Levy) and would incur costs that would need to be met from the Oil Pollution Fund or recovered from each assessed party through fees. On a conservative estimate of 1.5 hours per assessment, this would represent around $140,000 at the current applicable hourly rate of $235 (GST inclusive), and would cost each levy payer (if a fee was attached) around $350. For many levy payers, this could be more than the levy reduction resulting from the assessment, particularly small domestic operators who pay in the hundreds, not thousands, in terms of levy contributions.

Another complexity in the consideration of a performance-based levy is that the basis on which the levy is paid varies between levy paying sectors. Some pay annually, and some pay per port visit. If levy rates were designed to go up or down (depending on performance) this would potentially mean refunds, different rates from one voyage to another, and the generation of more invoices than is currently necessary. This adds up to more administration for Maritime NZ, less certainty for operators, and generally more complexity in terms of how the Oil Pollution Levies Order would need to be drafted, administered, and complied with.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

30 174

For potentially limited financial gain for levy payers, and by necessity a winners and losers framework (because a pre-determined quantum of levy revenue must be generated), we are of the view that a performance-based levy is not appropriate or beneficial in the Levy context.

We are however interested in your views on whether there should be further consideration given to this issue.

Oil Pollution Fund Reserves The decision was made to not specifically include a levy component to build up reserves because the Fund is expected to have a balance close to the amount of required reserves at 1 July 2016.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

31 175

How to submit

The deadline for making submissions on the proposed Levy is Friday 6th May 2016. Send your submissions to: [email protected]

Or:

Oil Pollution Levy Consultation Maritime New Zealand PO Box 25620 Wellington 6146 We will acknowledge all submissions that we receive and once a final decision about levy rates has been made, a summary of submissions received will be placed on the Maritime NZ website.

Submissions should indicate whether it would be acceptable for officials from Maritime NZ to contact you to discuss your submission as required.

Submissions are public information Submissions are public information. Please indicate clearly if your comments are commercially sensitive, or if, for some other reason, you consider they should not be disclosed. In addition, if you are an individual (i.e. your comments are made personally and not on behalf of a company or an organisation) please indicate if you consider for some reason that your identity should not be disclosed.

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

32 176

Appendix 1: Baseline operating expenditure

Proposed Baseline operating expenditure 2016/17-2018/19 Resources Strategy and Exercises Item Planning and Total ($000) International and training equipment

Personnel 160 237 410 253 1060

Regional Council 330 220 300 850

MPRS Courses 150 50 290 0 490

Oiled Wildlife 65 85 85 230 465

Property 33 55 55 80 223

Travel 125 25 25 25 200

Consultancy 60 20 15 15 110

IT/Communications 35 35 40 25 135

Other Operating 20 20 20 18 78

Industry Engagement 20 15 11 0 46

NOSC 10 10 10 10 40

Vehicles 2 5 17 15 39 Training 10 15 25 10 Development 60 Office Costs 10 12 12 10 44

Inter-Group Charge 100 200 200 190 690

Depreciation 0 0 0 640 640

Total 800 1,114 1,435 1,821 5,170

Review of the Oil Pollution Levy 2015, Consultation Document

33 177

Appendix 2: Operational and capital expenditure - Option A

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE – NEW Total Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2015/17 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Capability enhancement 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 1&2. Modelling – subsea well‐control incidents & 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 chemicals/produced gas 3&11. Aerial monitoring & dispersant application 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring 18. Contracts with vessel suppliers 20. Logistical support Vessel maintenance, training, & compliance 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Additional maintenance Total ‐ additional equipment capability 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 197,500 1,185,000

Training National Training Programme, comprising: 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Planning training 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Operations equipment training 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 Operations management & coordination training 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Logistics training 102,500 102,500 102,500 102,500 102,500 102,500 National On‐Scene Commander Oiled Wildlife Contract, comprising: Training Overhead (114%) Total ‐ additional training capability 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,800,000

Exercise Industry Exercise Programme, comprising: Offshore industry & fixed oil transfer sites exercises

Offshore industry and fixed oil transfer sites workshop (2yrly) National exercise programme Basic table‐top exercises with other govt agencies Total ‐ additional exercise capability 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Organisation Health & safety Stakeholder and supplier management, comprising: Build engagement with iwi utilising regional council planning

Australian engagement Other international engagement Information management Intelligence‐led Knowledge building & sustainment; benchmarking

Attendance at Clean Gulf ‐ spill response in very cold regions Total ‐ additional organisation capability 000000 0

People Staff ‐ salary Staff ‐ overhead (20%) Environmental Advisor activities Total ‐ additional people capability 000000 0

TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE ‐ NEW 497,500 497,500 497,500 2,985,000

34 178

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – NEW Total Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2015/17 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Distribution across years revised (eg, so single items not split over years) Asset replacement, comprising: 2,068,800 1,067,500 620,000 1,930,583 2,255,583 2,430,583 Asset replacement ‐ equipment 2,068,800 742,500 120,000 1,930,583 1,930,583 1,930,583 Aset replacement ‐ dispersant – 325,000 500,000 325,000 500,000 Capability enhancement 0 5. Spill‐tracking transponders 9. Dispersant stockpile 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring 13. Inshore/shoreline 14. Nearshore 15. Coastal (includes 7) 17. Oil recovery workboats 20. Logistical support Oiled wildlife contract ‐ equipment upgrade 0 Total equipment 2,068,800 1,067,500 620,000 1,930,583 2,255,583 2,430,583 10,373,049

Training Training equipment Total training 000000 0

People Infrastructure 00 00 Total people 00 00 0

TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2,068,800 1,067,500 620,000 10,373,049

TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE (OPEX AND CAPEX) 13,358,049

35 Appendix 3:Ratesandsectorshares-OptionA Total Revenue to be achieved 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Base Levy $5,170,000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 5170000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 Capability Levy $1,356,000 $1,356,000 $1,356,000 $1,356,000 $1,356,000 $1,356,000 Reserve Levy $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total OPL Levy $6,526,000 $6,526,000 $6,526,000 $6,526,000 $6,526,000 $6,526,000

Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates Foreign Vessels 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Passenger/Cargo/Oil Tankers 0.8100 Base Levy 0.2733 0.2638 0.2551 0.2502 0.2454 0.2407 0.2548 -0.5552 -68.5% $515,199 $533,802 $551,996 $562,794 $573,827 $585,100 0.0700 Capability Levy 0.0717 0.0692 0.0669 0.0656 0.0644 0.0631 0.0668 -0.0032 -4.5% $135,128 $140,007 $144,779 $147,611 $150,505 $153,461 0.1200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0000 Total 0.3450 0.3330 0.3220 0.3159 0.3098 0.3038 0.3216 -0.6784 -67.8% $650,327 $673,808 $696,775 $710,405 $724,331 $738,561 Movement in Revenue -$1,371,922 -$1,421,458 -$1,469,908 -$1,498,661 -$1,528,040 -$1,558,060 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 29.9900 Base Levy 33.0312 32.2225 31.4225 30.8255 30.2338 29.6477 31.2305 1.2405 4.1% $2,067,061 $2,118,938 $2,172,889 $2,214,972 $2,258,317 $2,302,962 2.6700 Capability Levy 8.6635 8.4514 8.2416 8.0850 7.9298 7.7761 8.1912 5.5212 206.8% $542,154 $555,760 $569,911 $580,948 $592,317 $604,026 4.1700 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -4.1700 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 36.8300 Total 41.6947 40.6739 37.4238 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 39.4217 2.5917 7.0% $2,609,215 $2,674,698 $2,742,800 $2,795,920 $2,850,633 $2,906,988 Movement in Revenue $171,540 $175,845 $180,323 $183,815 $187,412 $191,117 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 6.7200 Base Levy 14.1762 13.7257 13.2866 12.9631 12.6460 12.3352 13.1888 6.4688 96.3% $661,319 $683,024 $705,597 $723,204 $741,339 $760,018 0.6000 Capability Levy 3.7182 3.6000 3.4848 3.4000 3.3168 3.2353 3.4592 2.8592 476.5% $173,452 $179,145 $185,066 $189,684 $194,440 $199,339 0.9300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.9300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.2500 Total 17.8944 17.3257 16.7715 16.3631 15.9629 15.5705 16.6480 8.3980 101.8% $834,771 $862,169 $890,662 $912,887 $935,779 $959,357 Movement in 421096.341 434916.9115 449290.3047 460501.5513 472049.1353 483943.1469 Domestic Vessels 179

36 Passenger/Cargo/etc 301.8100 Base Levy 290.4691 279.5762 268.5571 257.4524 246.3045 235.1566 262.9193 -38.8907 -12.9% $461,914 $479,911 $499,602 $521,152 $544,739 $570,563 26.8300 Capability Levy 76.1849 73.3279 70.4378 67.5252 64.6013 61.6774 68.9591 42.1291 157.0% $121,152 $125,872 $131,037 $136,689 $142,876 $149,649 41.9900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -41.9900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 370.6300 Total 366.6541 352.9042 338.9949 324.9777 310.9059 296.8340 331.8785 -38.7515 -10.5% $583,066 $605,783 $630,639 $657,840 $687,615 $720,212 Movement in Revenue -$68,081 -$70,734 -$73,636 -$76,812 -$80,289 -$84,095 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 73.9100 Base Levy 40.4158 38.4913 36.6584 35.5906 34.5540 33.5476 36.5430 -37.3670 -50.6% $218,710 $229,645 $241,127 $248,361 $255,812 $263,486 6.5700 Capability Levy 10.6004 10.0956 9.6148 9.3348 9.0629 8.7989 9.5846 3.0146 45.9% $57,364 $60,232 $63,243 $65,141 $67,095 $69,108 10.2900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -10.2900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90.7700 Total 51.0162 48.5869 46.2732 44.9254 43.6169 42.3465 46.1275 -44.6425 -49.2% $276,073 $289,877 $304,371 $313,502 $322,907 $332,594 Movement in Revenue -$267,185 -$280,544 -$294,572 -$303,409 -$312,511 -$321,886 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 10.2900 Base Levy 39.4473 38.6738 37.9155 37.1721 36.4432 35.7286 37.5634 27.2734 265.0% $644,941 $657,839 $670,996 $684,416 $698,104 $712,066 0.9200 Capability Levy 10.3463 10.1435 9.9446 9.7496 9.5584 9.3710 9.8522 8.9322 970.9% $169,157 $172,540 $175,990 $179,510 $183,100 $186,763 1.4300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1.4300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.6400 Total 49.7936 48.8173 47.8601 46.9217 46.0016 45.0996 47.4157 34.7757 275.1% $814,097 $830,379 $846,987 $863,926 $881,205 $898,829 Movement in Revenue $597,076 $609,018 $621,198 $633,622 $646,295 $659,220 NZ Fishing Vessel 133.4900 Base Levy 62.1895 62.1895 62.1895 62.1895 62.1895 62.1895 62.1895 -71.3005 -53.4% $44,922 $44,922 $44,922 $44,922 $44,922 $44,922 11.9000 Capability Levy 16.3112 16.3112 16.3112 16.3112 16.3112 16.3112 16.3112 4.4112 37.1% $11,782 $11,782 $11,782 $11,782 $11,782 $11,782 18.6200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -18.6200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 164.0100 Total 78.5007 78.5007 78.5007 78.5007 78.5007 78.5007 78.5007 -85.5093 -52.1% $56,704 $56,704 $56,704 $56,704 $56,704 $56,704 Movement in Revenue -$61,767 -$61,767 -$61,767 -$61,767 -$61,767 -$61,767 Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Platforms 888,889.0000 Base Levy 726488.4000 726488.4000 726488.4000 726488.4000 726488.4000 726488.4000 726,488.4000 -162,400.6000 -18.3% $36,324 $36,324 $36,324 $36,324 $36,324 $36,324 10,700.0000 Capability Levy 190545.2000 190545.2000 190545.2000 190545.2000 190545.2000 190545.2000 190,545.2000 179,845.2000 1680.8% $9,527 $9,527 $9,527 $9,527 $9,527 $9,527 17,400.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -17,400.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 916,989.0000 Total 9170.3360 9170.3360 9170.3360 9170.3360 9170.3360 9170.3360 917,033.6000 44.6000 0.0% $45,852 $45,852 $45,852 $45,852 $45,852 $45,852 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 FPSOS 8,518,600.0000 Base Levy 8,318,271.500 8,318,271.5000 8,318,271.5000 8,318,271.5000 8,318,271.5000 8,318,271.5000 8,318,271.5000 -200,328.5000 -2.4% $166,365 $166,365 $166,365 $166,365 $166,365 $166,365 754,800.0000 Capability Levy 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 2,181,736.0000 1,426,936.0000 189.0% $43,635 $43,635 $43,635 $43,635 $43,635 $43,635 1,226,600.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1,226,600.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10,500,000.0000 Total 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 10,500,007.5000 7.5000 0.0% $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pipelines 888,889.0000 Base Levy 722,119.750 722,119.750 722,119.750 722,119.750 722,119.750 722,119.750 722,119.7500 -166,769.2500 -18.8% $28,885 $28,885 $28,885 $28,885 $28,885 $28,885 8,600.0000 Capability Levy 189,399.250 189,399.250 189,399.250 189,399.250 189,399.250 189,399.250 189,399.2500 180,799.2500 2102.3% $7,576 $7,576 $7,576 $7,576 $7,576 $7,576 14,000.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -14,000.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 911,489.0000 Total 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 911,519.0000 30.0000 0.0% $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Exploration Wells 888,889.0000 Base Levy 709,065.500 709,065.500 709,065.500 709,065.500 709,065.500 709,065.500 709,065.5000 -179,823.5000 -20.2% $14,181 $14,181 $14,181 $14,181 $14,181 $14,181 2,400.0000 Capability Levy 185,975.500 185,975.500 185,975.500 185,975.500 185,975.500 185,975.500 185,975.5000 183,575.5000 7649.0% $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 $3,720 3,900.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3,900.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 895,189.0000 Total 895041.0000 895041.0000 895041.0000 895041.0000 895041.0000 895041.0000 895,041.0000 -148.0000 0.0% $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3

$6,134,467 $6,303,632 $6,479,152 $6,621,398 $6,769,388 $6,923,460 180

37 Total for 6 years based on average rates $39,231,497 Per Budget $39,156,000 Variance due to using average rates $75,497 Comparison of sector risk profiles and contribution, current and proposed Levy - Option A

Total Levy per Sector Share (%) Option A Option A Option A 2012 Sector annum, 13/14-15/16 Sector based on MOSRA Proposed Proposed Proposed Total $ Levy Change Share (%) [1] using 2012 Sector 2015 [3] Base Levy $ Capability Levy $ Levy $ Share $ [2] Domestic Passenger, Cargo, and Tanker 13.125 721,322.66 9.8707 510,316.31 133,846.99 644,163 (77,159) Bunker Fuel Domestic Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 10.375 570,188.39 17.7790 919,174.23 241,083.22 1,160,257 590,069 Persistent 6.375 350,356.72 4.6787 241,888.47 63,443.09 305,332 (45,025) Non Persistent 4.000 219,831.67 13.1003 677,285.75 177,640.13 854,926 635,094 NZ Fishing 2.500 137,394.79 0.8689 44,921.86 11,782.21 56,704 (80,691) Foreign Passenger and Cargo, 28.640 1,573,994.73 10.6917 552,760.58 144,979.37 697,740 (876,255) 181 Foreign Tanker Bunker Fue Foreign Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 41.360 2,273,059.43 56.0362 2,897,071.07 759,851.37 3,656,922 1,383,863 Persistent oil 34.320 1,886,155.70 42.2871 2,186,241.69 573,413.33 2,759,655 873,499 Non-persistent oil 7.040 386,903.73 13.7491 710,829.38 186,438.04 897,267 510,364 Off-shore Oil and Gas - total 4.000 310,212.79 4.7535 245,755.95 64,456.84 310,213 - Platforms 0.134 45,849.45 0.7026 36,324.42 9,525.03 45,849 - FPSOs 3.744 210,000.00 3.2179 166,365.43 43,634.57 210,000 - Pipelines 0.086 36,459.56 0.5587 28,884.79 7,574.77 36,460 - Exploration Well 0.006 17,903.78 0.2743 14,181.31 3,722.47 17,904 -

Total 5,586,172.79 100.0000 5,170,000.00 1,356,000.00 6,526,000 939,827

[1] Based on 2012 MOSRA Sector Risk Share report as modified in order to reflect apprach to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers. Fixed rates for off-shore oil and gas. [2] GST excl. Based on modelled base levy requirement. [3] Modified in regards to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers as per 2012 Consultation and Levy Order 2013.

Check 5,586,172.79 100.00 5,170,000.00 1,356,000.00 6,526,000.00 939,827.21

38 182

Appendix 4: Operational and capital expenditure - Option B

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE – NEW Total Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2015/17 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Capability enhancement 262,500 366,300 377,250 377,250 377,250 377,250 1&2. Modelling – subsea well‐control incidents & 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 chemicals/produced gas 3&11. Aerial monitoring & dispersant application 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – 18. Contracts with vessel suppliers 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 20. Logistical support 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Vessel maintenance, training, & compliance 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 Additional maintenance 35,000 48,800 59,750 59,750 59,750 59,750 Total ‐ additional equipment capability 262,500 366,300 377,250 377,250 377,250 377,250 2,137,800

Training National Training Programme, comprising: 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Planning training 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 Operations equipment training 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 Operations management & coordination training 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 Logistics training 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 National On‐Scene Commander ––14,400 14,400 14,400 14,400 Oiled Wildlife Contract, comprising: 154,080 154,080 154,080 154,080 154,080 154,080 Training 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 Overhead (114%) 82,080 82,080 82,080 82,080 82,080 82,080 Total ‐ additional training capability 454,080 454,080 468,480 468,480 468,480 468,480 2,782,080

Exercise Industry Exercise Programme, comprising: 4,000 40,000 4,000 4,000 40,000 4,000 Offshore industry & fixed oil transfer sites exercises 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 – 36,000 – – 36,000 – Offshore industry and fixed oil transfer sites workshop (2yrly) National exercise programme 75,000 75,000 75,000 100,800 100,800 100,800 Basic table‐top exercises with other govt agencies 20,000 20,000 Total ‐ additional exercise capability 79,000 135,000 79,000 104,800 160,800 104,800 663,400

Organisation Health & safety 9,200 – 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Stakeholder and supplier management, comprising: 26,500 40,500 26,500 26,500 40,500 26,500

Build engagement with iwi utilising regional council planning – 14,000 – 14,000

Australian engagement 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Other international engagement 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Information management 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Intelligence‐led 65,000 65,000 65,000 76,590 76,590 76,590 Knowledge building & sustainment; benchmarking 50,000 50,000 50,000 61,590 61,590 61,590

Attendance at Clean Gulf ‐ spill response in very cold regions 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total ‐ additional organisation capability 125,700 130,500 120,500 163,090 177,090 163,090 879,970

People Staff ‐ salary 80,000 80,000 80,000 82,400 84,872 87,418 Staff ‐ overhead (20%) 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,480 16,974 17,484 Environmental Advisor activities 000000 Total ‐ additional people capability 96,000 96,000 96,000 98,880 101,846 104,902 593,628

TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE ‐ NEW 1,017,280 1,181,880 1,141,230 1,212,500 1,285,466 1,218,522 7,056,878

39 183

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – NEW

Total Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2015/17 ‐ 2021/22

Equipment Asset replacement, comprising: 2,068,800 1,067,500 620,000 1,930,583 2,255,583 2,430,583 10,373,049 Asset replacement ‐ equipment 2,068,800 742,500 120,000 1,930,583 1,930,583 1,930,583 Aset replacement ‐ dispersant – 325,000 500,000 325,000 500,000 Capability enhancement 875,000 1,220,000 375,000 0 002,470,000 5. Spill‐tracking transponders – – 9. Dispersant stockpile – 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – – 13. Inshore/shoreline 700,000 – – 14. Nearshore – – 325,000 15. Coastal (includes 7) – 1,170,000 – 17. Oil recovery workboats 125,000 – – 20. Logistical support 50,000 50,000 50,000 Oiled wildlife contract ‐ equipment upgrade 17,500 –– 17,500 Total equipment 2,961,300 2,287,500 995,000 12,860,549

Training Training equipment 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total training 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 65,000

People Infrastructure 25,000 00000 Total people 25,000 0000025,000

TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 3,026,300 2,292,500 1,000,000 12,950,549

TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE (OPEX AND CAPEX) 20,007,427

40 Appendix 5:Ratesandsectorshares-OptionB

Total Revenue to be achieved 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Base Levy $5,170,000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 5170000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 Capability Levy $2,371,000 $2,371,000 $2,371,000 $2,371,000 $2,371,000 $2,371,000 Reserve Levy $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total OPL Levy $7,541,000 $7,541,000 $7,541,000 $7,541,000 $7,541,000 $7,541,000

Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates Foreign Vessels 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Passenger/Cargo/Oil Tankers 0.8100 Base Levy 0.2752 0.2656 0.2568 0.2519 0.2471 0.2423 0.2565 -0.5535 -68.3% $518,659 $537,386 $555,703 $566,573 $577,680 $589,029 0.0700 Capability Levy 0.1262 0.1218 0.1178 0.1155 0.1133 0.1111 0.1176 0.0476 68.0% $237,861 $246,449 $254,850 $259,835 $264,928 $270,133 0.1200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0000 Total 0.4014 0.3874 0.3746 0.3674 0.3604 0.3534 0.3741 -0.6259 -62.6% $756,520 $783,836 $810,553 $826,408 $842,609 $859,162 Movement in Revenue -$1,265,729 -$1,311,430 -$1,356,130 -$1,382,658 -$1,409,763 -$1,437,459 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 29.9900 Base Levy 33.2530 32.4389 31.6335 31.0325 30.4369 29.8468 31.4403 1.4503 4.8% $2,080,943 $2,133,169 $2,187,483 $2,229,848 $2,273,483 $2,318,428 2.6700 Capability Levy 15.2501 14.8767 14.5074 14.2317 13.9586 13.6880 14.4187 11.7487 440.0% $954,336 $978,287 $1,003,196 $1,022,624 $1,042,636 $1,063,248 4.1700 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -4.1700 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 36.8300 Total 48.5031 47.3157 43.5348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 45.8590 9.0290 24.5% $3,035,279 $3,111,455 $3,190,678 $3,252,472 $3,316,120 $3,381,677 Movement in Revenue $597,605 $612,603 $628,201 $640,367 $652,898 $665,806 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 6.7200 Base Levy 14.2715 13.8180 13.3759 13.0503 12.7310 12.4181 13.2774 6.5574 97.6% $665,763 $687,614 $710,339 $728,064 $746,321 $765,125 0.6000 Capability Levy 6.5450 6.3370 6.1343 5.9849 5.8385 5.6950 6.0891 5.4891 914.9% $305,324 $315,345 $325,766 $333,895 $342,268 $350,892 0.9300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.9300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.2500 Total 20.8165 20.1550 19.5102 19.0352 18.5695 18.1132 19.3666 11.1166 134.7% $971,087 $1,002,959 $1,036,105 $1,061,959 $1,088,589 $1,116,018 Movement in Revenue $557,412 $575,707 $594,733 $609,574 $624,859 $640,604 Domestic Vessels 184

41 Passenger/Cargo/etc 301.8100 Base Levy 292.4202 281.4541 270.3610 259.1817 247.9589 236.7361 264.6853 -37.1247 -12.3% $465,017 $483,135 $502,958 $524,652 $548,398 $574,396 26.8300 Capability Levy 134.1060 129.0769 123.9895 118.8626 113.7158 108.5689 121.3866 94.5566 352.4% $213,260 $221,569 $230,660 $240,609 $251,499 $263,422 41.9900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -41.9900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 370.6300 Total 426.5262 410.5310 394.3505 378.0444 361.6747 345.3050 386.0720 15.4420 4.2% $678,277 $704,704 $733,618 $765,261 $799,898 $837,818 Movement in Revenue $27,129 $28,186 $29,343 $30,609 $31,994 $33,511 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 73.9100 Base Levy 40.6871 38.7496 36.9044 35.8295 34.7859 33.7727 36.7882 -37.1218 -50.2% $220,177 $231,186 $242,746 $250,028 $257,529 $265,255 6.5700 Capability Levy 18.6594 17.7709 16.9246 16.4317 15.9531 15.4884 16.8713 10.3013 156.8% $100,975 $106,024 $111,325 $114,665 $118,105 $121,648 10.2900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -10.2900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90.7700 Total 59.3465 56.5205 53.8290 52.2612 50.7390 49.2612 53.6595 -37.1105 -40.9% $321,152 $337,210 $354,070 $364,693 $375,633 $386,902 Movement in Revenue -$222,106 -$233,211 -$244,872 -$252,218 -$259,785 -$267,578 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 10.2900 Base Levy 39.7123 38.9336 38.1702 37.4218 36.6880 35.9686 37.8158 27.5258 267.5% $649,273 $662,258 $675,504 $689,014 $702,794 $716,850 0.9200 Capability Levy 18.2123 17.8552 17.5051 17.1619 16.8254 16.4955 17.3426 16.4226 1785.1% $297,761 $303,717 $309,791 $315,987 $322,306 $328,753 1.4300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1.4300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.6400 Total 57.9246 56.7889 55.6753 54.5837 53.5134 52.4641 55.1583 42.5183 336.4% $947,034 $965,975 $985,294 $1,005,000 $1,025,100 $1,045,602 Movement in Revenue $730,013 $744,614 $759,506 $774,696 $790,190 $805,994 NZ Fishing Vessel 133.4900 Base Levy 62.6046 62.6046 62.6046 62.6046 62.6046 62.6046 62.6046 -70.8854 -53.1% $45,222 $45,222 $45,222 $45,222 $45,222 $45,222 11.9000 Capability Levy 28.7109 28.7109 28.7109 28.7109 28.7109 28.7109 28.7109 16.8109 141.3% $20,739 $20,739 $20,739 $20,739 $20,739 $20,739 18.6200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -18.6200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 164.0100 Total 91.3155 91.3155 91.3155 91.3155 91.3155 91.3155 91.3155 -72.6945 -44.3% $65,961 $65,961 $65,961 $65,961 $65,961 $65,961 Movement in Revenue -$52,510 -$52,510 -$52,510 -$52,510 -$52,510 -$52,510 Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Platforms 888,889.0000 Base Levy 628672.0000 628672.0000 628672.0000 628672.0000 628672.0000 628672.0000 628,672.0000 -260,217.0000 -29.3% $31,434 $31,434 $31,434 $31,434 $31,434 $31,434 10,700.0000 Capability Levy 288313.6000 288313.6000 288313.6000 288313.6000 288313.6000 288313.6000 288,313.6000 277,613.6000 2594.5% $14,416 $14,416 $14,416 $14,416 $14,416 $14,416 17,400.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -17,400.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 916,989.0000 Total 9169.8560 9169.8560 9169.8560 9169.8560 9169.8560 9169.8560 916,985.6000 -3.4000 0.0% $45,849 $45,849 $45,849 $45,849 $45,849 $45,849 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FPSOS 8,518,600.0000 Base Levy 7,198,708.000 7,198,708.0000 7,198,708.0000 7,198,708.0000 7,198,708.0000 7,198,708.0000 7,198,708.0000 -1,319,892.0000 -15.5% $143,974 $143,974 $143,974 $143,974 $143,974 $143,974 754,800.0000 Capability Levy 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 3,301,380.5000 2,546,580.5000 337.4% $66,028 $66,028 $66,028 $66,028 $66,028 $66,028 1,226,600.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1,226,600.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10,500,000.0000 Total 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 10,500,088.5000 88.5000 0.0% $210,002 $210,002 $210,002 $210,002 $210,002 $210,002 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Pipelines 888,889.0000 Base Levy 624,923.750 624,923.750 624,923.750 624,923.750 624,923.750 624,923.750 624,923.7500 -263,965.2500 -29.7% $24,997 $24,997 $24,997 $24,997 $24,997 $24,997 8,600.0000 Capability Levy 286,594.750 286,594.750 286,594.750 286,594.750 286,594.750 286,594.750 286,594.7500 277,994.7500 3232.5% $11,464 $11,464 $11,464 $11,464 $11,464 $11,464 14,000.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -14,000.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 911,489.0000 Total 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 911,518.5000 29.5000 0.0% $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Exploration Wells 888,889.0000 Base Levy 613,679.000 613,679.000 613,679.000 613,679.000 613,679.000 613,679.000 613,679.0000 -275,210.0000 -31.0% $12,274 $12,274 $12,274 $12,274 $12,274 $12,274 2,400.0000 Capability Levy 281,437.500 281,437.500 281,437.500 281,437.500 281,437.500 281,437.500 281,437.5000 279,037.5000 11626.6% $5,629 $5,629 $5,629 $5,629 $5,629 $5,629 3,900.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3,900.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 895,189.0000 Total 895116.5000 895116.5000 895116.5000 895116.5000 895116.5000 895116.5000 895,116.5000 -72.5000 0.0% $17,902 $17,902 $17,902 $17,902 $17,902 $17,902 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1 -$1

$7,085,525 $7,282,313 $7,486,494 $7,651,969 $7,824,124 $8,003,354 185 42 Total for 6 years based on average rates $45,333,779 Per Budget $45,246,000 Variance due to using average rates $87,779 Comparison of sector risk profiles and contribution, current and proposed Levy - Option B

Total Levy per Sector Share (%) Option A Option A Option A 2012 Sector annum, 13/14-15/16 Sector based on MOSRA Proposed Proposed Proposed Total $ Levy Change Share (%) [1] using 2012 Sector 2015 [3] Base Levy $ Capability Levy $ Levy $ Share $ [2] Domestic Passenger, Cargo, and Tanker 13.125 721,322.66 9.9370 513,744.26 235,606.89 749,351.16 28,029 Bunker Fuel Domestic Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 10.375 570,188.39 17.8984 925,348.60 424,371.67 1,349,720.27 779,532 Persistent 6.375 350,356.72 4.7101 243,513.31 111,676.99 355,190.31 4,834 Non Persistent 4.000 219,831.67 13.1883 681,835.29 312,694.68 994,529.97 774,698 NZ Fishing 2.500 137,394.79 0.8747 45,223.62 20,739.88 65,963.50 (71,431) Foreign Passenger and Cargo, 28.640 1,573,994.73 10.7635 556,473.64 255,202.90 811,676.54 (762,318) 186 Foreign Tanker Bunker Fue Foreign Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 41.360 2,273,059.43 56.4126 2,916,531.59 1,337,544.15 4,254,075.74 1,981,016 Persistent oil 34.320 1,886,155.70 42.5711 2,200,927.35 1,009,362.79 3,210,290.14 1,324,134 Non-persistent oil 7.040 386,903.73 13.8415 715,604.24 328,181.37 1,043,785.61 656,882 Off-shore Oil and Gas - total 4.000 310,212.79 4.1137 212,678.29 97,534.50 310,212.79 - Platforms 0.134 45,849.45 0.6080 31,433.60 14,415.85 45,849.45 - FPSOs 3.744 210,000.00 2.7848 143,974.16 66,025.84 210,000.00 - Pipelines 0.086 36,459.56 0.4835 24,996.95 11,462.61 36,459.56 - Exploration Well 0.006 17,903.78 0.2374 12,273.58 5,630.20 17,903.78 -

Total 5,586,172.79 100.000 5,170,000.00 2,371,000.00 7,541,000.00 1,954,827

[1] Based on 2012 MOSRA Sector Risk Share report as modified in order to reflect apprach to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers. Fixed rates for off-shore oil and gas. [2] GST excl. Based on modelled base levy requirement. [3] Modified in regards to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers as per 2012 Consultation and Levy Order 2013.

Check 5,586,172.79 100.00 5,170,000.00 2,371,000.00 7,541,000.00 1,954,827.21

43 187

Appendix 6: Operational and capital expenditure - Option C

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE – NEW

TOTAL Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2016/7 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Capability enhancement 341,500 445,300 456,250 456,250 456,250 456,250 1&2. Modelling – subsea well‐control incidents & 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 chemicals/produced gas 50000 3&11. Aerial monitoring & dispersant application 194,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 194000 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – 18. Contracts with vessel suppliers 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90000 20. Logistical support 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40000 Vessel maintenance, training, & compliance 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22500 Additional maintenance 35,000 48,800 59,750 59,750 59,750 59750 Total ‐ additional equipment capability 341,500 445,300 456,250 456,250 456,250 456,250 2,611,800

Training National Training Programme, comprising: 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300000 Planning training 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58000 Operations equipment training 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116000 Operations management & coordination training 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 58000 Logistics training 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 68,000 68000 National On‐Scene Commander – – 14,400 14,400 14,400 14400 Oiled Wildlife Contract, comprising: 206,510 206,510 206,510 206,510 206,510 206510 Training 96,500 96,500 96,500 96,500 96,500 96500 Overhead (114%) 110,010 110,010 110,010 110,010 110,010 110010 Total ‐ additional training capability 506,510 506,510 520,910 520,910 520,910 520,910 3,096,660

Exercise Industry Exercise Programme, comprising: 4,000 40,000 4,000 4,000 40,000 4000 Offshore industry & fixed oil transfer sites exercises 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4000

– 36,000 – – 36,000 – Offshore industry and fixed oil transfer sites workshop (2yrly) National exercise programme 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100,800 100800 Basic table‐top exercises with other govt agencies 20,000 20,000 Total ‐ additional exercise capability 104,800 160,800 104,800 104,800 160,800 104,800 740,800

Organisation Health & safety 9,200 – 4,000 10,000 10,000 10000 Stakeholder and supplier management, comprising: 26,500 40,500 26,500 26,500 40,500 26500

Build engagement with iwi utilising regional council planning – 14,000 – 14,000

Australian engagement 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12500 Other international engagement 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14000 Information management 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 Intelligence‐led 76,590 76,590 76,590 76,590 76,590 76590 Knowledge building & sustainment; benchmarking 61,590 61,590 61,590 61,590 61,590 61590

Attendance at Clean Gulf ‐ spill response in very cold regions 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15000 Total ‐ additional organisation capability 162,290 167,090 157,090 163,090 177,090 163,090 989,740

People Staff ‐ salary 160,000 164,800 169,744 174,836 180,081 185483.852 Staff ‐ overhead (20%) 32,000 32,960 33,949 34,967 36,016 37096.7704 Environmental Advisor activities 000000 Total ‐ additional people capability 192,000 197,760 203,693 209,804 216,098 222,581 1,241,935

TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE ‐ NEW 1,307,100 1,477,460 1,442,743 1,454,854 1,531,148 1,467,631 8,680,935

44 188

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – NEW TOTAL Item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2016/7 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Asset replacement, comprising: 3,346,550 2,646,500 1,612,500 1,929,250 53,000 1,528,000 11,115,800 Asset replacement ‐ equipment 3,346,550 1,996,500 612,500 1,929,250 53,000 1,528,000 Aset replacement ‐ dispersant – 650,000 1000000 000 Capability enhancement 1,575,000 1,220,000 700000 0 3,495,000 5. Spill‐tracking transponders – – 9. Dispersant stockpile – 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – – 13. Inshore/shoreline 1,400,000 – – 14. Nearshore – – 650000 15. Coastal (includes 7) – 1,170,000 – 17. Oil recovery workboats 125,000 – – 20. Logistical support 50,000 50,000 50000 Oiled wildlife contract ‐ equipment upgrade 17,500 – – 17,500 Total equipment 4,939,050 3,866,500 2,312,500 1,929,250 53,000 1,528,000 14,628,300

Training Training equipment 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5000 Total training 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 65,000

People Infrastructure 50,000 00000 Total people 50,000 00000 50,000

TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 5,029,050 3,871,500 2,317,500 14,743,300

TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE (OPEX AND CAPEX) 23,424,235

45 Appendix 7:Ratesandsectorshares-OptionC

Total Revenue to be achieved 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Base Levy $5,170,000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 5170000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 Capability Levy $2,879,000 $2,879,000 $2,879,000 $2,879,000 $2,879,000 $2,879,000 Reserve Levy $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total OPL Levy $8,049,000 $8,049,000 $8,049,000 $8,049,000 $8,049,000 $8,049,000

Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates Foreign Vessels 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Passenger/Cargo/Oil Tankers 0.8100 Base Levy 0.2759 0.2663 0.2575 0.2526 0.2477 0.2430 0.2572 -0.5528 -68.3% $520,066 $538,844 $557,211 $568,110 $579,247 $590,627 0.0700 Capability Levy 0.1537 0.1483 0.1434 0.1407 0.1380 0.1353 0.1432 0.0732 104.6% $289,607 $300,064 $310,292 $316,362 $322,563 $328,901 0.1200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0000 Total 0.4296 0.4146 0.4009 0.3932 0.3857 0.3783 0.4004 -0.5996 -60.0% $809,674 $838,909 $867,503 $884,472 $901,811 $919,528 Movement in Revenue -$1,212,575 -$1,256,358 -$1,299,180 -$1,324,594 -$1,350,561 -$1,377,093 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 29.9900 Base Levy 33.3431 32.5268 31.7192 31.1165 30.5193 29.9277 31.5254 1.5354 5.1% $2,086,580 $2,138,946 $2,193,407 $2,235,887 $2,279,641 $2,324,708 2.6700 Capability Levy 18.5677 18.1131 17.6633 17.3278 16.9952 16.6657 17.5555 14.8855 557.5% $1,161,946 $1,191,107 $1,221,435 $1,245,091 $1,269,456 $1,294,552 4.1700 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -4.1700 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 36.8300 Total 51.9108 50.6399 46.5934 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 49.0809 12.2509 33.3% $3,248,526 $3,330,053 $3,414,842 $3,480,977 $3,549,097 $3,619,260 Movement in Revenue $810,851 $831,201 $852,365 $868,873 $885,876 $903,389 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 6.7200 Base Levy 14.3100 13.8553 13.4120 13.0855 12.7654 12.4517 13.3133 6.5933 98.1% $667,562 $689,472 $712,258 $730,031 $748,337 $767,193 0.6000 Capability Levy 7.9688 7.7155 7.4687 7.2869 7.1086 6.9339 7.4137 6.8137 1135.6% $371,743 $383,944 $396,633 $406,530 $416,724 $427,224 0.9300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.9300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.2500 Total 22.2788 21.5708 20.8808 20.3724 19.8740 19.3856 20.7271 12.4771 151.2% $1,039,305 $1,073,416 $1,108,890 $1,136,561 $1,165,061 $1,194,417 Movement in Revenue $625,630 $646,164 $667,519 $684,175 $701,332 $719,003 Domestic Vessels

Passenger/Cargo/etc 301.8100 Base Levy 293.2118 282.2160 271.0929 259.8833 248.6301 237.3770 265.4019 -36.4081 -12.1% $466,275 $484,442 $504,320 $526,072 $549,883 $575,951

26.8300 Capability Levy 163.2798 157.1567 150.9625 144.7203 138.4538 132.1873 147.7934 120.9634 450.9% $259,653 $269,770 $280,839 $292,952 $306,211 $320,728 189 46 41.9900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -41.9900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 370.6300 Total 456.4916 439.3727 422.0554 404.6037 387.0840 369.5643 413.1953 42.5653 11.5% $725,928 $754,212 $785,158 $819,024 $856,094 $896,678 Movement in Revenue $74,781 $77,695 $80,883 $84,372 $88,190 $92,371 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 73.9100 Base Levy 40.7976 38.8549 37.0047 35.9269 34.8805 33.8645 36.8882 -37.0218 -50.1% $220,776 $231,815 $243,405 $250,707 $258,229 $265,975 6.5700 Capability Levy 22.7188 21.6370 20.6067 20.0065 19.4238 18.8580 20.5418 13.9718 212.7% $122,943 $129,090 $135,544 $139,611 $143,799 $148,113 10.2900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -10.2900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90.7700 Total 63.5165 60.4919 57.6113 55.9333 54.3042 52.7225 57.4300 -33.3400 -36.7% $343,718 $360,904 $378,949 $390,318 $402,028 $414,088 Movement in Revenue -$199,540 -$209,517 -$219,993 -$226,593 -$233,391 -$240,392 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 10.2900 Base Levy 39.8198 39.0390 38.2735 37.5231 36.7873 36.0660 37.9181 27.6281 268.5% $651,030 $664,051 $677,332 $690,879 $704,696 $718,790 0.9200 Capability Levy 22.1743 21.7395 21.3133 20.8953 20.4856 20.0840 21.1153 20.1953 2195.1% $362,537 $369,788 $377,184 $384,727 $392,422 $400,270 1.4300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1.4300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.6400 Total 61.9941 60.7785 59.5868 58.4184 57.2730 56.1500 59.0335 46.3935 367.0% $1,013,567 $1,033,839 $1,054,516 $1,075,606 $1,097,118 $1,119,060 Movement in Revenue $796,547 $812,478 $828,727 $845,302 $862,208 $879,452 NZ Fishing Vessel 133.4900 Base Levy 62.7764 62.7764 62.7764 62.7764 62.7764 62.7764 62.7764 -70.7136 -53.0% $45,346 $45,346 $45,346 $45,346 $45,346 $45,346 11.9000 Capability Levy 34.9581 34.9581 34.9581 34.9581 34.9581 34.9581 34.9581 23.0581 193.8% $25,252 $25,252 $25,252 $25,252 $25,252 $25,252 18.6200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -18.6200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 164.0100 Total 97.7344 97.7344 97.7344 97.7344 97.7344 97.7344 97.7344 -66.2756 -40.4% $70,598 $70,598 $70,598 $70,598 $70,598 $70,598 Movement in Revenue -$47,874 -$47,874 -$47,874 -$47,874 -$47,874 -$47,874 Platforms 888,889.0000 Base Levy 588966.4000 588966.4000 588966.4000 588966.4000 588966.4000 588966.4000 588,966.4000 -299,922.6000 -33.7% $29,448 $29,448 $29,448 $29,448 $29,448 $29,448 10,700.0000 Capability Levy 327975.6000 327975.6000 327975.6000 327975.6000 327975.6000 327975.6000 327,975.6000 317,275.6000 2965.2% $16,399 $16,399 $16,399 $16,399 $16,399 $16,399 17,400.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -17,400.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 916,989.0000 Total 9169.4200 9169.4200 9169.4200 9169.4200 9169.4200 9169.4200 916,942.0000 -47.0000 0.0% $45,847 $45,847 $45,847 $45,847 $45,847 $45,847 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 FPSOS 8,518,600.0000 Base Levy 6,744,265.000 6,744,265.0000 6,744,265.0000 6,744,265.0000 6,744,265.0000 6,744,265.0000 6,744,265.0000 -1,774,335.0000 -20.8% $134,885 $134,885 $134,885 $134,885 $134,885 $134,885 754,800.0000 Capability Levy 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,755,655.5000 3,000,855.5000 397.6% $75,113 $75,113 $75,113 $75,113 $75,113 $75,113 1,226,600.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1,226,600.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10,500,000.0000 Total 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 10,499,920.5000 -79.5000 0.0% $209,998 $209,998 $209,998 $209,998 $209,998 $209,998 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 -$2 Pipelines 888,889.0000 Base Levy 585,502.500 585,502.500 585,502.500 585,502.500 585,502.500 585,502.500 585,502.5000 -303,386.5000 -34.1% $23,420 $23,420 $23,420 $23,420 $23,420 $23,420 8,600.0000 Capability Levy 326,046.750 326,046.750 326,046.750 326,046.750 326,046.750 326,046.750 326,046.7500 317,446.7500 3691.2% $13,042 $13,042 $13,042 $13,042 $13,042 $13,042 14,000.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -14,000.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 911,489.0000 Total 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 911,549.2500 60.2500 0.0% $36,462 $36,462 $36,462 $36,462 $36,462 $36,462 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Exploration Wells 888,889.0000 Base Levy 574,904.000 574,904.000 574,904.000 574,904.000 574,904.000 574,904.000 574,904.0000 -313,985.0000 -35.3% $11,498 $11,498 $11,498 $11,498 $11,498 $11,498 2,400.0000 Capability Levy 320,145.000 320,145.000 320,145.000 320,145.000 320,145.000 320,145.000 320,145.0000 317,745.0000 13239.4% $6,403 $6,403 $6,403 $6,403 $6,403 $6,403 3,900.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3,900.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 895,189.0000 Total 895049.0000 895049.0000 895049.0000 895049.0000 895049.0000 895049.0000 895,049.0000 -140.0000 0.0% $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 $17,901 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3 -$3

$7,561,525 $7,772,139 $7,990,665 $8,167,765 $8,352,015 $8,543,837

Total for 6 years based on average rates $48,387,946 Per Budget $48,294,000 Variance due to using average rates $93,946 190 47 Comparison of sector risk profiles and contribution, current and proposed Levy - Option C

Total Levy per Sector Share (%) Option A Option A Option A 2012 Sector annum, 13/14-15/16 Sector based on MOSRA Proposed Proposed Proposed Total $ Levy Change Share (%) [1] using 2012 Sector 2015 [3] Base Levy $ Capability Levy $ Levy $ Share $ [2] Domestic Passenger, Cargo, and Tanker 13.125 721,322.66 9.9639 515,135.16 286,861.53 801,996.69 80,674.04 Bunker Fuel Domestic Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 10.375 570,188.39 17.9469 927,853.87 516,690.77 1,444,544.64 874,356.25 Persistent 6.375 350,356.72 4.7229 244,172.59 135,971.55 380,144.14 29,787.42 Non Persistent 4.000 219,831.67 13.2240 683,681.27 380,719.22 1,064,400.50 844,568.83 NZ Fishing 2.500 137,394.79 0.8771 45,346.05 25,251.70 70,597.76 (66,797.04) Foreign Passenger and Cargo, 28.640 1,573,994.73 10.7927 557,980.22 310,720.51 868,700.73 (705,294.00) 191 Foreign Tanker Bunker Fue Foreign Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 41.360 2,273,059.43 56.5653 2,924,432.90 1,628,514.49 4,552,947.39 2,279,887.96 Persistent oil 34.320 1,886,155.70 42.6864 2,206,891.25 1,228,939.56 3,435,830.81 1,549,675.11 Non-persistent oil 7.040 386,903.73 13.8789 717,541.65 399,574.93 1,117,116.58 730,212.85 Off-shore Oil and Gas - total 4.000 310,212.79 3.8540 199,251.80 110,960.99 310,212.79 - Platforms 0.134 45,849.45 0.5696 29,448.32 16,401.13 45,849.45 - FPSOs 3.744 210,000.00 2.6090 134,885.30 75,114.70 210,000.00 - Pipelines 0.086 36,459.56 0.4530 23,420.10 13,039.46 36,459.56 - Exploration Well 0.006 17,903.78 0.2224 11,498.08 6,405.70 17,903.78 -

Total 5,586,172.79 100.0000 5,170,000.00 2,879,000.00 8,049,000.00 2,462,827.21

[1] Based on 2012 MOSRA Sector Risk Share report as modified in order to reflect apprach to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers. Fixed rates for off-shore oil and gas. [2] GST excl. Based on modelled base levy requirement. [3] Modified in regards to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers as per 2012 Consultation and Levy Order 2013.

Check 5,586,172.79 100.00 5,170,000.00 2,879,000.00 8,049,000.00 2,462,827.21

48 192

Appendix 8: Operational and capital expenditure - Option D

OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE – NEW

TOTAL Component and item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2016/7 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Capability enhancement 431,500 470,300 481,250 571,250 571,250 571,250 1&2. Modelling – subsea well‐control incidents & 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 chemicals/produced gas 50000 3&11. Aerial monitoring & dispersant application 194,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 194,000 194000 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15000 18. Contracts with vessel suppliers 80,000 90,000 90,000 180,000 180,000 180000 20. Logistical support 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50000 Vessel maintenance, training, & compliance 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22,500 22500 Additional maintenance 35,000 48,800 59,750 59,750 59,750 59750 Total ‐ additional equipment capability 431,500 470,300 481,250 571,250 571,250 571,250 3,096,800

Training National Training Programme, comprising: 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460000 Planning training 108,000 108,000 108,000 108,000 108,000 108000 Operations equipment training 166,000 166,000 166,000 166,000 166,000 166000 Operations management & coordination training 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78000 Logistics training 108,000 108,000 108,000 108,000 108,000 108000 National On‐Scene Commander – – 14,400 14,400 14,400 14400 Oiled Wildlife Contract, comprising: 256,800 256,800 256,800 256,800 256,800 256800 Training 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120000 Overhead (114%) 136,800 136,800 136,800 136,800 136,800 136800 Total ‐ additional training capability 716,800 716,800 731,200 731,200 731,200 731,200 4,358,400

Exercise Industry Exercise Programme, comprising: 4,000 40,000 4,000 4,000 40,000 4000 Offshore industry & fixed oil transfer sites exercises 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4000 – 36,000 – – 36,000 – Offshore industry and fixed oil transfer sites workshop (2yrly) National exercise programme 146,800 146,800 146,800 146,800 146,800 146800 Basic table‐top exercises with other govt agencies 20,000 20,000 Total ‐ additional exercise capability 150,800 206,800 150,800 150,800 206,800 150,800 1,016,800

Organisation Health & safety 9,200 – 4,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Stakeholder and supplier management, comprising: 26,500 40,500 26,500 26,500 40,500 26,500 Build engagement with iwi utilising regional council planning – 14,000 – 14,000

Australian engagement 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Other international engagement 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 Information management 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Intelligence‐led 76,590 76,590 76,590 76,590 76,590 76,590 Knowledge building & sustainment; benchmarking 61,590 61,590 61,590 61,590 61,590 61,590

Attendance at Clean Gulf ‐ spill response in very cold regions 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Total ‐ additional organisation capability 162,290 167,090 157,090 163,090 177,090 163,090 989,740

People Staff ‐ salary 160,000 164,800 169,744 294,836 303,681 312,792 Staff ‐ overhead (20%) 32,000 32,960 33,949 58,967 60,736 62,558 Environmental Advisor activities 0 0 0 119250 119250 119,250 Total ‐ additional people capability 192,000 197,760 203,693 473,054 483,668 494,600 2,044,774

TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE ‐ NEW 1,653,390 1,758,750 1,724,033 2,089,394 2,170,008 2,110,940 11,506,514

49 193

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE – NEW TOTAL Item 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2016/7 ‐ 2021/22 Equipment Asset replacement, comprising: 3,346,550 2,646,500 1,612,500 1,929,250 53,000 1,528,000 11,115,800 Asset replacement ‐ equipment 3,346,550 1,996,500 612,500 1,929,250 53,000 1,528,000 Aset replacement ‐ dispersant – 650,000 1000000 000 Capability enhancement 875,000 1,950,000 875000 700,000 1,250,000 325,000 5,975,000 5. Spill‐tracking transponders – 50,000 – 9. Dispersant stockpile – 500,000 500,000 12. Dispersant effectiveness monitoring – 100,000 – 13. Inshore/shoreline 700,000 – – 700,000 ‐‐ 14. Nearshore – – 325,000 325,000 15. Coastal (includes 7) – 1,250,000 – 1,250,000 17. Oil recovery workboats 125,000 – – 20. Logistical support 50,000 50,000 50,000 Oiled wildlife contract ‐ equipment upgrade 17,500 – – Total equipment 4,239,050 4,596,500 2,487,500 2,629,250 1,303,000 1,853,000 17,108,300

Training Training equipment 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5000 Total training 40,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 65,000

People Infrastructure 50,000 00000 Total people 50,000 0000050,000

TOTAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 4,329,050 4,601,500 2,492,500 2,634,250 1,308,000 1,858,000 17,223,300

TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE (OPEX AND CAPEX) 28,729,814

50 Appendix 9:Ratesandsectorshares-OptionD

Total Revenue to be achieved 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Base Levy $5,170,000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 5170000 $5,170,000 $5,170,000 Capability Levy $3,682,000 $3,682,000 $3,682,000 $3,682,000 $3,682,000 $3,682,000 Reserve Levy $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total OPL Levy $8,852,000 $8,852,000 $8,852,000 $8,852,000 $8,852,000 $8,852,000

Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates Foreign Vessels 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

Passenger/Cargo/Oil Tankers 0.8100 Base Levy 0.2769 0.2673 0.2585 0.2535 0.2486 0.2438 0.2581 -0.5519 -68.1% $521,950 $540,796 $559,229 $570,169 $581,346 $592,767 0.0700 Capability Levy 0.1972 0.1903 0.1841 0.1805 0.1771 0.1737 0.1838 0.1138 162.6% $371,726 $385,147 $398,275 $406,066 $414,026 $422,160 0.1200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.1200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1.0000 Total 0.4741 0.4576 0.4425 0.4340 0.4257 0.4175 0.4419 -0.5581 -55.8% $893,676 $925,944 $957,505 $976,234 $995,372 $1,014,927 Movement in Revenue -$1,128,573 -$1,169,322 -$1,209,179 -$1,232,832 -$1,256,999 -$1,281,694 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 29.9900 Base Levy 33.4643 32.6450 31.8345 31.2297 30.6303 30.0365 31.6400 1.6500 5.5% $2,094,166 $2,146,723 $2,201,382 $2,244,016 $2,287,929 $2,333,160 2.6700 Capability Levy 23.8328 23.2493 22.6721 22.2413 21.8144 21.3915 22.5336 19.8636 744.0% $1,491,435 $1,528,865 $1,567,793 $1,598,156 $1,629,431 $1,661,643 4.1700 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -4.1700 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 36.8300 Total 57.2972 55.8944 51.4280 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 54.1736 17.3436 47.1% $3,585,601 $3,675,588 $3,769,175 $3,842,172 $3,917,360 $3,994,803 Movement in Revenue $1,147,926 $1,176,736 $1,206,697 $1,230,067 $1,254,139 $1,278,932 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 6.7200 Base Levy 14.3621 13.9057 13.4608 13.1331 12.8119 12.4970 13.3618 6.6418 98.8% $669,991 $691,981 $714,850 $732,687 $751,060 $769,984 0.6000 Capability Levy 10.2285 9.9034 9.5866 9.3532 9.1244 8.9002 9.5161 8.9161 1486.0% $477,158 $492,819 $509,106 $521,809 $534,894 $548,372 0.9300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -0.9300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8.2500 Total 24.5906 23.8091 23.0475 22.4864 21.9363 21.3971 22.8778 14.6278 177.3% $1,147,149 $1,184,799 $1,223,955 $1,254,497 $1,285,955 $1,318,356 Movement in Revenue $733,474 $757,547 $782,583 $802,111 $822,225 $842,942 Domestic Vessels

Passenger/Cargo/etc 301.8100 Base Levy 294.2800 283.2442 272.0805 260.8301 249.5359 238.2418 266.3688 -35.4412 -11.7% $467,974 $486,207 $506,157 $527,989 $551,886 $578,049 26.8300 Capability Levy 209.5820 201.7225 193.7718 185.7595 177.7159 169.6724 189.7040 162.8740 607.1% $333,284 $346,270 $360,478 $376,026 $393,045 $411,678 194 51 41.9900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -41.9900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 370.6300 Total 503.8620 484.9666 465.8523 446.5896 427.2519 407.9141 456.0728 85.4428 23.1% $801,258 $832,477 $866,634 $904,015 $944,931 $989,727 Movement in Revenue $150,111 $155,960 $162,359 $169,362 $177,028 $185,420 Oil Tankers - Persistent Oil 73.9100 Base Levy 40.9462 38.9964 37.1394 36.0577 35.0075 33.9878 37.0225 -36.8875 -49.9% $221,580 $232,659 $244,292 $251,620 $259,169 $266,944 6.5700 Capability Levy 29.1613 27.7727 26.4502 25.6798 24.9318 24.2057 26.3669 19.7969 301.3% $157,806 $165,696 $173,981 $179,200 $184,576 $190,114 10.2900 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -10.2900 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90.7700 Total 70.1075 66.7691 63.5896 61.7375 59.9393 58.1935 63.3894 -27.3806 -30.2% $379,386 $398,355 $418,273 $430,821 $443,746 $457,058 Movement in Revenue -$163,873 -$172,066 -$180,670 -$186,090 -$191,673 -$197,423 Oil Tankers - Non Persistent Oil 10.2900 Base Levy 39.9646 39.1810 38.4127 37.6596 36.9211 36.1972 38.0560 27.7660 269.8% $653,398 $666,466 $679,796 $693,392 $707,259 $721,405 0.9200 Capability Levy 28.4622 27.9041 27.3570 26.8206 26.2947 25.7791 27.1030 26.1830 2846.0% $465,341 $474,648 $484,141 $493,824 $503,700 $513,774 1.4300 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1.4300 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 12.6400 Total 68.4269 67.0852 65.7698 64.4802 63.2158 61.9763 65.1590 52.5190 415.5% $1,118,739 $1,141,114 $1,163,937 $1,187,215 $1,210,960 $1,235,179 Movement in Revenue $901,719 $919,753 $938,148 $956,911 $976,049 $995,570 NZ Fishing Vessel 133.4900 Base Levy 63.0054 63.0054 63.0054 63.0054 63.0054 63.0054 63.0054 -70.4846 -52.8% $45,512 $45,512 $45,512 $45,512 $45,512 $45,512 11.9000 Capability Levy 44.8715 44.8715 44.8715 44.8715 44.8715 44.8715 44.8715 32.9715 277.1% $32,413 $32,413 $32,413 $32,413 $32,413 $32,413 18.6200 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -18.6200 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 164.0100 Total 107.8769 107.8769 107.8769 107.8769 107.8769 107.8769 107.8769 -56.1331 -34.2% $77,924 $77,924 $77,924 $77,924 $77,924 $77,924 Movement in Revenue -$40,547 -$40,547 -$40,547 -$40,547 -$40,547 -$40,547 Output - Rates (in cents, GST Excl.) New Rates (Average) Average Avge Rate % Revenue Generated on forecasted Gross Tonnes Current Rates 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 New Rates Incr (Decr) Incr (Decr) 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Platforms 888,889.0000 Base Levy 535612.0000 535612.0000 535612.0000 535612.0000 535612.0000 535612.0000 535,612.0000 -353,277.0000 -39.7% $26,781 $26,781 $26,781 $26,781 $26,781 $26,781 10,700.0000 Capability Levy 381455.2000 381455.2000 381455.2000 381455.2000 381455.2000 381455.2000 381,455.2000 370,755.2000 3465.0% $19,073 $19,073 $19,073 $19,073 $19,073 $19,073 17,400.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -17,400.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 916,989.0000 Total 9170.6720 9170.6720 9170.6720 9170.6720 9170.6720 9170.6720 917,067.2000 78.2000 0.0% $45,853 $45,853 $45,853 $45,853 $45,853 $45,853 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 FPSOS 8,518,600.0000 Base Levy 6,132,395.500 6,132,395.5000 6,132,395.5000 6,132,395.5000 6,132,395.5000 6,132,395.5000 6,132,395.5000 -2,386,204.5000 -28.0% $122,648 $122,648 $122,648 $122,648 $122,648 $122,648 754,800.0000 Capability Levy 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 4,367,404.5000 3,612,604.5000 478.6% $87,348 $87,348 $87,348 $87,348 $87,348 $87,348 1,226,600.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -1,226,600.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10,500,000.0000 Total 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 10,499,800.0000 -200.0000 0.0% $209,996 $209,996 $209,996 $209,996 $209,996 $209,996 -$4 -$4 -$4 -$4 -$4 -$4 Pipelines 888,889.0000 Base Levy 532,380.750 532,380.750 532,380.750 532,380.750 532,380.750 532,380.750 532,380.7500 -356,508.2500 -40.1% $21,295 $21,295 $21,295 $21,295 $21,295 $21,295 8,600.0000 Capability Levy 379,154.000 379,154.000 379,154.000 379,154.000 379,154.000 379,154.000 379,154.0000 370,554.0000 4308.8% $15,166 $15,166 $15,166 $15,166 $15,166 $15,166 14,000.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -14,000.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 911,489.0000 Total 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 911,534.7500 45.7500 0.0% $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $36,461 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 Exploration Wells 888,889.0000 Base Levy 522,945.500 522,945.500 522,945.500 522,945.500 522,945.500 522,945.500 522,945.5000 -365,943.5000 -41.2% $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 $10,459 2,400.0000 Capability Levy 372,434.500 372,434.500 372,434.500 372,434.500 372,434.500 372,434.500 372,434.5000 370,034.5000 15418.1% $7,449 $7,449 $7,449 $7,449 $7,449 $7,449 3,900.0000 Capital Expenditure Levy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 -3,900.0000 -100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0000 Reserve Levy 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 895,189.0000 Total 895380.0000 895380.0000 895380.0000 895380.0000 895380.0000 895380.0000 895,380.0000 191.0000 0.0% $17,908 $17,908 $17,908 $17,908 $17,908 $17,908 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4

$8,313,952 $8,546,420 $8,787,621 $8,983,097 $9,186,466 $9,398,193

Total for 6 years based on average rates $53,215,748 Per Budget $53,112,000

Variance due to using average rates $103,748 195 52 Comparison of sector risk profiles and contribution, current and proposed Levy - Option D

Total Levy per Sector Share (%) Option A Option A Option A 2012 Sector annum, 13/14-15/16 Sector based on MOSRA Proposed Proposed Proposed Total $ Levy Change Share (%) [1] using 2012 Sector 2015 [3] Base Levy $ Capability Levy $ Levy $ Share $ [2] Domestic Passenger, Cargo, and Tanker 13.125 721,322.66 10.0002 517,008.80 368,206.27 885,215.07 163,892.41 Bunker Fuel Domestic Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 10.375 570,188.39 18.0122 931,228.64 663,207.71 1,594,436.35 1,024,247.96 Persistent 6.375 350,356.72 4.7401 245,060.69 174,528.72 419,589.41 69,232.69 Non Persistent 4.000 219,831.67 13.2721 686,167.95 488,678.99 1,174,846.94 955,015.27 NZ Fishing 2.500 137,394.79 0.8803 45,510.99 32,412.27 77,923.26 (59,471.53) Foreign Passenger and Cargo, 28.640 1,573,994.73 10.8319 560,009.69 398,830.89 958,840.58 (615,154.15) 196 Foreign Tanker Bunker Fue Foreign Tankers - Oil as Cargo (total) 41.360 2,273,059.43 56.7711 2,935,059.23 2,090,312.73 5,025,371.96 2,752,312.52 Persistent oil 34.320 1,886,155.70 42.8416 2,214,907.75 1,577,431.15 3,792,338.90 1,906,183.20 Non-persistent oil 7.040 386,903.73 13.9294 720,151.48 512,881.58 1,233,033.05 846,129.32 Off-shore Oil and Gas - total 4.000 310,212.79 3.5045 181,182.65 129,030.14 310,212.79 - Platforms 0.134 45,849.45 0.5180 26,780.60 19,068.85 45,849.45 - FPSOs 3.744 210,000.00 2.3723 122,647.91 87,352.09 210,000.00 - Pipelines 0.086 36,459.56 0.4119 21,295.23 15,164.33 36,459.56 - Exploration Well 0.006 17,903.78 0.2023 10,458.91 7,444.87 17,903.78 -

Total 5,586,172.79 100.000 5,170,000.00 3,682,000.00 8,852,000 3,265,827

[1] Based on 2012 MOSRA Sector Risk Share report as modified in order to reflect apprach to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers. Fixed rates for off-shore oil and gas. [2] GST excl. Based on modelled base levy requirement. [3] Modified in regards to bunker share of risk for domestic and foreign tankers as per 2012 Consultation and Levy Order 2013.

Check 5,586,172.79 100.00 5,170,000.00 3,682,000.00 8,852,000.00 3,265,827.21

53 197

Appendix 10: Comparison of options - Capability

up of of up

- systems $1M

+

/obsolete 58% 58% 29%

ace earlier ace life -

of

- 52 D 682 environmental skills environmental 8.8 5.170 3. – capabilities As per option A As per option A As per As per option C C As option per C As option per As per option C C As option per C As option per C option As per As per option B B As option per As per Option C C Option As per As per Option B Option As per over 2015/16 levels + additional $30,000 p/a $30,000 + additional 200,000 p/a training/exercises p/a 200,000 $26M holdingsend by date second full system $1.25M $1.25M system full + second 3.252 3.252 2.002 Further increase in core FTE for for FTE core in increase Further + $ Earlier and extra funding for skills for funding extra and Earlier + Additional dispersant stocks dispersant + Additional vessel contracts put in pl in put contracts vessel + 1 more FTE FTE more + 1 + earlier and more vessels $350,000 vessels more and + earlier + Effectiveness monitoring $150,000 $150,000 monitoring + Effectiveness Slight increase to Wildlife capability, capability, Wildlife to increase Slight significant increase to NRT capability NRT to increase significant 100% of100% assets at end environmental skills, earlier build earlier skills, environmental replaced, majornew equipment Current contracts maintained and significant significant and maintained contracts Current Significant, incremental capability increase

skilling and and skilling 44% 44% 18% -

life/obsolete

- ps of

- nt new equipment C operations/planning operations/planning – 8.049 5.170 2.879 capability ponses relationshi As per option A option A As per As per option B B As option per B As option per B As option per As per Option A Option As per As per Option B Option As per B Option As per As per Option B Option As per significa M end holdings date by / + additional $60,000 p/a $60,000 + additional and res and + further systems $325,000 $325,000 systems + further 2.449 2.449 1.199 Address obsolescence earlier earlier obsolescence Address earlier obsolescence Address earlier obsolescence Address increase over 2015/16 levels $23.5 + Back to current funding level funding current to + Back Replace obsolescent stock earlier stock obsolescent Replace Moderate, incremental capability vessel contracts for a new capability a new for contracts vessel - 1 more FTE FTE more + - 1 Further increase in core FTE supports supports FTE core in increase Further replaced readiness wildlife to increase Further Slight increase - earlier re-equipment re-equipment - earlier increase Slight + further additional systems $700,000 $700,000 systems additional + further 100% of100% assets at end operations and planning, up planning, and operations Current contracts maintained plus initial plus initial maintained contracts Current

– skill skill

- -

re

35% 35% 10% life/obsolete - few vessels few able to to up able supports supports

– of - relationships vessel contracts contracts vessel B 5.170 2.371 7.541 initial initial equipment and logistics logistics and equipment As per option A option A As per As per option A option A per As option A As per As per Option A A per Option As A Option As per A Option As per A Option As per wildlife support wildlife – capability new important and develop develop and Basic capability; capability; Basic +$100,000 p/a for exercise. exercise. p/a for +$100,000 + $10,000 p/a for exercises- exercises- for p/a + $10,000

increase over 2015/16 levels $22.5M end holdings date by Improved readiness, skills and and skills readiness, Improved 1.941 1.941 0.691 ncrease in core FTE in ncrease - additional systems $700,000 $700,000 systems + - additional Reduced training budget (-33%) budget training Reduced Limited, incremental capability I replaced, some new equipment - one full coastal system $1.2M $1.2M system coastal full + - one + new, larger workboat $125,000 workboat larger + new, + - - 1 FTE FTE + - 1 - $145,00 p/a relationships/skills relationships/skills p/a + - $145,00 - additional equipment $325,000 $325,000 equipment + - additional subsidises subsidises knowledge, more resilience, stronger stronger resilience, more knowledge, - $150,000 p/a/ for revised contract revised for p/a/ + - $150,000 95% of95% assets at end Slight reduction in aerial contract costs costs contract in aerial reduction Slight equipment programme, programme, equipment

maintained, maintained, 17% 17% (5%) (5%)

life/obsolete

- 8.2 8.2

–

of - by endby date

A 6.526 5.170 5.170 1.356 numbers maintained Current level level Current No capability No Current level. level. Current level. Current level. Current No capability No capability at capability 2015/16 levels Current level level Current Address obsolescence obsolescence Address obsolescence Address obsolescence Address obsolescence Address obsolescence Address Address obsolescence obsolescence Address obsolescence Address Vessel ancillaries replaced replaced Vessel ancillaries Vehicle ancillaries replaced replaced Vehicle ancillaries $20M holdings Current contracts maintained maintained contracts Current Reduced training budget (-33%) budget training Reduced and relationships at current level at current relationships and 0.926 0.926 (0.324) (0.324) replaced, no additional equipment Current level of readiness, skills and and skills readiness, of level Current 95% of95% assets at end Maintains knowledge and current trained personnel personnel trained current and knowledge Current contracts maintained, engagement engagement maintained, contracts Current Current staffing levels at MPRS MPRS at levels staffing Current current organisational systems and processes processes and systems current organisational

M p/a) p/a) M $15M) $

-shore -shore Coastal Coastal Near-shore In EQUIPMENT levy $5.6Mof levy SPECIALIST CONTRACTS SPECIALIST TRAINING AND EXERCISES AND TRAINING PEOPLE AND ORGANISATION AND PEOPLE $M/% increase$M/% from 2015 OVERALL CAPABILITY EFFECT (Current holdings approx. PROPOSED LEVY OPTIONS ( OPTIONS LEVY PROPOSED $M/% Increase$M/% from 2013 target forecast levy revenueforecast $6.85M of levy Aerial Observation/ Aerial Dispersant Dispersant Aerial Observation/ Aerial modelling Oil/Gas plume Opportunity of Vessels Additional FTE FTE Additional & Safety/Information/Intelligence Health Local/Regional/Industry Local/Regional/Industry Team Response National Capability Wildlife Oiled Vehicles Vehicles Systems Pumping Systems Communication Equipment Support Dispersant Dispersant Systems Application Dispersant Workboats Recovery Systems Systems Recovery Skimmers, (Booms, Tanks) Storage BASELINE LEVY BASELINE LEVY CAPABILITY LEVY TOTAL ANNUAL

54 198

Agenda Memorandum

Date 5 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee Subject: Submission on the Review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan

Item: 10

Approved by: A D McLay, Director – Resource Management

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1663528

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to introduce a submission made by the Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) on the Review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan prepared by Stratford District Council, and to recommend its endorsement.

A copy of the submission is attached to this memorandum. Submissions closed on 7 April 2016.

Executive summary The Stratford District Council (District Council) has commenced a review on its Reserve Management Plan as it relates to King Edward Park. The Plan has been out for consultation since February with submissions closing on 7 April 2016. The proposed reserve management plan sets out proposals for the future direction of the Park and provides an opportunity for the local community to have a say. Key points made in the submission are: • support the pragmatic approach adopted in the Plan by the District Council to recognise the different values and uses associated with the Park • notes that King Edward Park and the Carrington Walkway have regionally significant indigenous biodiversity values and, through the Plan, there is an opportunity to increase public awareness and appreciation of natural values associated with the area • notes the Council’s interest in working with the District Council and the community to maintain and enhance biodiversity values within the Park • seek that pests and weeds within the Park be explicitly addressed within the Plan’s management objectives.

199

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives the memorandum Submission on the Review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan, and 2. endorses the submission.

Background Under the Reserves Act 1997, reserve-administering bodies are required to keep management plans under regular review. Stratford District Council has decided to initiate a comprehensive review in regards to King Edward Park and has prepared a revised plan. Public submissions were sought and interest parties, including this Council, were encouraged to comment.

The submission In brief, the submission is supportive of the District Council’s review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan (the Plan). In particular, the Council supported the pragmatic approach that the District Council is taking to recognise the different values and uses associated with the Park. However, specific comments were provided in relation to preserving as far as possible the indigenous fauna, bush areas and heritage features within the Park.

The submission notes that King Edward Park stands apart from virtually all other suburb parks in the district is its connectivity to the Patea River and the regenerating native bush.

The submission notes that King Edward Park and the Carrington Walkway have been identified by this Council as a Key Native Ecosystem (KNE) with regionally significant indigenous biodiversity values. The submission suggests that through the Plan there is an opportunity to increase public awareness and appreciation of natural values associated with the area and notes the Council’s interest in working with the District Council and the community to maintain and enhance biodiversity values within the Park.

The submission further notes a number of pests and weeds that threaten the values within the Park and seeks that these be explicitly addressed within the management objectives.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 (Planning, decision-making and accountability) of the Local Government Act 2002 has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

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

200

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

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

Appendices/Attachments Document 1655556: King Edward Park Submission

201

6 April 2016 Document: 1655556

The Chief Executive Stratford District Council PO Box 320 Stratford 4352

Submission on the Review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan

Introduction 1. The Taranaki Regional Council (the ‘Council’) thanks Stratford District Council for the opportunity to comment on the Review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan.

2. The Council makes this submission in recognition of the purpose of local government set out in the Local Government Act 2002 and the role, status and powers, and principles under that Act, relating to local authorities. In particular, the Council has prepared this submission in recognition of its: • functions and responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act or the RMA) • regional advocacy responsibilities whereby the Council represents the Taranaki region on matters of regional significance and concern.

3. The Council has also been guided by its Mission Statement, ‘To work for a thriving and prosperous Taranaki’ across all of its various functions, roles and responsibilities, in preparing this submission.

General support 4. The Council supports the Stratford District Council’s review of King Edward Park Reserve Management Plan (the Plan). The proposed reserve management plan is an opportunity for the District Council to clarify its thinking on the future direction of the Park and for the local community to have a say in future directions. The Council supports the Plan’s objectives particularly in relation to preserving as far as possible the indigenous fauna, bush areas and heritage features and supports the pragmatic approach which the District Council is taking that recognises the different values and uses associated with the Park.

5. The Council wishes to refer to the Regional Walkways and Cycleway Strategy for Taranaki. It should be noted that the Carrington Walkway, located in King Edward Park, is included in the Strategy which aims to encourage continued development and provision of walking and cycling track routes. Policies also include promoting available routes and amenities as well as providing pleasant and interesting environments in which to walk and cycle.

202

Natural character and features 6. As noted in the Plan, the features that make King Edward Park stand apart from virtually all other suburb parks in the district is its connectivity to the Patea River and the regenerating native bush. The District Council will be aware the Council has recently identified King Edward Park and the Carrington Walkway as a Key Native Ecosystem (KNE). KNEs are sites that are regionally significant in terms of their indigenous biodiversity values. The KNE area provides habitat for resident native forest birds such as the grey warbler and fantail. The forest is also part of a wider foraging area for more mobile native birds including the New Zealand pigeon, tui, bellbird and silvereye. North Island rifleman and blag shag have also been identified in or near the Park. The King Edward Park area contains indigenous vegetation classified as an ‘acutely threatened’ LENZ (Land Environments New Zealand) environment. Across Taranaki there are only a few very rare sites containing the types of indigenous habitats and ecosystems found in the Park. What remains is typically highly modified, with poor connectivity and degraded ecological linkages.

7. It is suggested that through the Plan there is an opportunity to increase public awareness and appreciation of natural values associated with the area. It is also noted that key ecological processes still influence the site, and with appropriate management, the Park can remain resilient to existing or potential threats.

8. The Council also wishes to note its interest in working with the District Council and the community to maintain and enhance biodiversity values associated with the Park. Through its biodiversity KNE programme, the Council offers property planning services, expert advice and information, and other assistance that may be of assistance to the District Council in its efforts to protect and enhance ecological values associated with the sites.

Pest plants and animals 9. Current pest plants and animals that threaten values in the Park includes possums, cats, mustelids, rodents as well as old mans beard, cherry, ivy, Himalayan honeysuckle etc.

10. It is noted that there is no specific section on pest plants, although the vegetation section acknowledges existing and planted natives as being highly valued, as well as the cultural value of exotic plantings. The Plan favours planting of natives generally and ‘actively discourage the growth of exotic seedlings and saplings that may germinate naturally, and to actively discourage the introduction of exotic species into the bush area’.

11. Notwithstanding the above, the Council proposes that the management plan could more explicitly address and include pest/weed management objectives. A revised Plan could contain specific sections on pest and weed management. More detail regarding values (indigenous vegetation and fauna) and threats to those values (pest plants and animals) could be helpful in targeting resources and management actions. Emphasis could then be placed on nurturing native habitats.

12. The Council notes that some exotic plantings have not been actively managed in the past and now compromise the visual amenity of areas of the Park and river walkway, and in places the biodiversity values of the area. This could be addressed through intermittent

203

renewal in a sustainable approach, by replacing select exotic trees with replacement exotics or native plantings as appropriate. This would lead to a more durable, long lasting cultivated environment. It is also advisable that less-mature exotic specimen and trees be assessed for site suitability along inaccessible reaches of the river walkway, as these may present the Stratford District Council with significant management costs in the future as they increase in size.

13. Finally, the Council recommends Stratford District Council reconsider funding allocation towards both pest animal and plant management within King Edward Park and the Patea River walkway. It is noted that the Stratford District Council is already doing possum and limited pest plant control in the Park and river walkway, however more comprehensive pest plant control and predator (e.g. mustelid and rats) control could be considered, subject to community support. The Council would be happy to discuss this further with Stratford District Council.

Conclusion The Council again thanks Stratford District Council for the opportunity to make a submission on the Reserve Management Plan as it relates to King Edward Park.

The Council is supportive of many of the objectives and policies in the plan.

The Council does not wish to be heard in support of its submission.

Yours faithfully B G Chamberlain Chief Executive

per: A D McLay Director-Resource Management

204

Agenda Memorandum

Date 05 May 2016

Memorandum to Chairperson and Members Policy and Planning Committee

Subject: Key Native Ecosystems programme 2016 - update two

Item: 11

Approved by: S R Hall, Director - Operations

B G Chamberlain, Chief Executive

Document: 1672564

Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present for Members’ information an update on the identification of eight further new Key Native Ecosystem (KNE) sites.

Executive summary • To assist it in giving effect to its statutory functions for indigenous biodiversity under the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council has adopted An Operational Strategy to Guide Biodiversity Actions of the Taranaki Regional Council (‘the Biodiversity Strategy’). • The Biodiversity Strategy sets out four strategic priorities, one of which relates to the Council focusing on protecting KNEs on privately owned land. • The Council’s management approach is to work with interested land holders and community groups, through provision of a property planning service and other assistance, in order to promote the voluntary protection and enhancement of ecological values associated with these sites. The identification of KNEs is ongoing. As the opportunity arises new sites are assessed in relation to their regional significance and/or existing information and databases updated. • Council officers have recently investigated an additional eight sites and recommend they be adopted as a KNE. The candidate sites are: Korito Heights; Waimoku Wetland; Cardenica Woodlot; Redpath Bush; Forest & Bees Takou Reserve; QEII 5/06/282; NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetland; and Mangapuni. • All these sites have been assessed as significant in accordance with criteria set out in the Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki (2010), i.e. rarity and distinctiveness, representativeness or ecological context. • As at 20 April 2016, the Council has identified 218 KNEs (covering approximately 121,913 hectares). A total of 172 of these sites are partially or completely privately owned (covering approximately 11,998 hectares). The eight sites referred to in this memorandum

205

comprise 1268.7 ha, which combined with the 12 sites identified in March (465 ha) makes a total for the year of 20 new KNEs covering 1733 ha. • Identification of a site as a KNE does not have any extra bearing on the rules or controls that already apply to such sites in regional or district council plans. Identification is used by the Council to focus its non-regulatory efforts to work with and support land owners to protect biodiversity values on their land through the preparation and implementation of biodiversity plans, the provision of environmental enhancement grant funding, and/or assisting with pest and weed control.

Recommendations That the Taranaki Regional Council: 1. receives this memorandum and the attached inventory sheets for: Korito Heights; Waimoku Wetland; Cardenica Woodlot; Redpath Bush; Forest & Bees Takou Reserve; QEII 5/06/282; NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetland; and Mangapuni. 2. notes that the aforementioned sites have indigenous biodiversity values of regional significance and should be identified as Key Native Ecosystems.

Background Pursuant to section 30(ga) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Taranaki Regional Council (the Council) has responsibilities “…for the establishment, policies, and methods for maintaining indigenous biodiversity.”

To assist it in giving effect to its statutory functions, in 2006 the Council prepared an initial regional inventory that identified natural areas with significant indigenous biodiversity values (Key Native Ecosystems or KNEs). In 2008 the Council further adopted An Operational Strategy to Guide Biodiversity Actions of the Taranaki Regional Council (‘the Biodiversity Strategy’). The Biodiversity Strategy sets out four strategic priorities, one of which relates to the Council protecting KNEs, particularly those on privately owned land. The Council’s management approach is to work with interested land holders and community groups, through provision of a property planning service and other assistance, in order to promote the voluntary protection and enhancement of ecological values associated with these sites.

The identification of KNEs is ongoing. As the opportunity arises new sites are assessed in relation to their regional significance and/or existing information and databases updated. In accordance with criteria set out in the Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki (2010), ‘candidate’ sites must be assessed as being ‘high’ in one or more of the following matters: • Rarity and distinctiveness: refers to the presence of ‘threatened’ indigenous flora and fauna species (in accordance with the New Zealand Threat Classification), or the presence of species distinctive because they are at their national distributional limit, or species that are particularly unique or uncommon in Taranaki; • Representativeness: refers to an area being significant because it supports ecosystems that are now much reduced in relation to their former extent (e.g. less than 10 or 20% of original areal extent remains); • Ecological context: refers to an area that enhances connectivity between fragmented habitats, buffers or enhances the ecological values of a specific site, or provides seasonal or core habitat for specific indigenous species.

206

In addition to the above, a site must also be sustainable, i.e. through appropriate management the values of the site will continue to be significant in the future.

Candidate KNE sites Identification of a site as a KNE does not have any extra bearing on the rules or controls that already apply to such sites in regional or district council plans. Identification is used by the Council to focus its non-regulatory efforts. These include Council officers working with land occupiers and interest groups to prepare and implement biodiversity plans that will maintain or enhance the site’s biodiversity values. Council support of the land occupier’s efforts includes the use of environmental enhancement grants, and/or assisting with pest and weed control.

The 2015/2025 Long Term Plan includes, amongst other things, a target to maintain and regularly update the Council’s Inventory of KNEs. Council officers have recently investigated and consulted with land owners to identify another twelve sites as KNEs. In brief, the sites are:

• The Korito Heights KNE is located on private land approximately 13 km south of New Plymouth in the Egmont Ecological District. The area consists of a 20 ha modified/ regenerating lowland forest remnant on the gully margins of a major tributary of the Mangawarawara Stream. Korito is long and narrow and covers the length of the property from Egmont National Park to the lower property boundary (almost 2 kms of stream margin). The area provides very good connectivity and compliments other KNEs and habitats in the area. Although the canopy is dominated by kamahi, other species such as miro, toro, hinau, northern rata tawa and rewarewa are present and are in good condition. A good sub canopy and understorey is also present and includes mahoe, wineberry, raukawa, rangiora, pigeonwood, mountain cabbage tree and hangehange. Tree and ground ferns, seedlings, and saplings are common. The area falls within the ‘Less reduced, better protected’ LENZ environment F5.3b. Native birdlife recorded in and around the area include the New Zealand pigeon, grey warbler, fantail, tui, and silvereye. Very good habitat exists for notable freshwater fish such as shortjaw kokopu and koaro. The ‘At Risk’ longfin eel is present along with the native freshwater crayfish. • Waimoku Wetland: The Waimoku Wetland KNE is located on private land on Shearer Drive in Oakura. The site is in the Egmont Ecological District and located within the Waimoku stream catchment. The KNE area is made up of a regenerating wetland area with the Waimoku Stream running along the western edge. Little original vegetation remains but the wetland has been planted in native species and is regenerating. The wetland contains a considerable number of pest plant species which will require significant effort to bring under control. The site lies in close proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area. The wetland is dominated by planted flax and cabbage trees with natural regeneration of cutty grass. Of note is the presence of the regionally distinctive tree whau. The flora of the site will continue to regenerate into a more natural state if pest plant issues can be managed. Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include tui, grey warbler, fantail and sacred kingfisher. Notable native freshwater fish are present including giant kokopu. Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates. • Cardenica Woodlot: The Cardenica Woodlot KNE is located on private land on Clearview Road near Lepperton, 7 km North of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont ecological district and located within the Waiongana catchment and is made up of a 2.1

207

ha remnant of semi-coastal forest. The remnant is fenced, but in some areas the fence is no longer stock-proof. The site is adjacent to the Te Wairoa KNE and is close to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Lepperton bush and Tarurutangi swamp. A mix of forest types is present including semi-coastal/lowland tawa/ pukatea/ kohekohe forest and lowland swamp forest containing pukatea and swamp maire. Other canopy trees include titoki, and rewarewa. A number of other plant species are also present in the canopy and sub-canopy. These include kahikatea, puriri, karaka, mamaku, kawakawa, pigeonwood, various Coprosmas, silver fern, mahoe, nikau, and supplejack. The regionally distinctive plants swamp maire, tawhirikaro and the fern Deparia are present at the site. Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include the New Zealand pigeon, Tui, grey warbler and fantail. Good habitat exists for notable freshwater fish, reptiles and invertebrates. • Redpath Bush: The Redpath Bush KNE is located on private land on Tarata Road approximately 2 km east of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont Ecological District and located within the Waitara catchment. The area is made up of two remnants of lowland forest with a total size of 6.2 ha. The larger remnant is bordered by large sycamore trees and has a mostly tawa dominated canopy with some regenerating native vegetation surrounding a small creek. The smaller remnant lies along the Kurapete stream. Both remnants are fenced, but the smaller remnant has some stock invasion from the other side of the Kurapete Stream. The site lies in close proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area. Aside from tawa, other canopy trees include pukatea, kahikatea, rimu, and rewarewa. Other plant species in the canopy and sub-canopy include kohekohe, kamahi, toropapa, mamaku, kawakawa, pigeonwood, round leaved coprosma, silver tree fern, mahoe, kanono and supplejack. Native birdlife in and around the KNE include the New Zealand pigeon, Tui, grey warbler and fantail. Notable freshwater fish species in the Kurapete Stream nearby include giant kokopu and lamprey. Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates. • Forest & Bees Takou Reserve: The Forest & Bees Takou Reserve KNE is located on private land near Omoana in east Taranaki. The site is within the Matemateaonga Ecological District and the Whenuakura River catchment. The KNE covers 481.6 ha and is a mix of original and cut over lowland forest with small areas of modified regenerating native forest in places. The forest is typical of original and regenerating forest found in the eastern Taranaki area. The KNE is surrounded by adjacent native forest including a 6.5 km boundary with the Waitotara Conservation Area. Other nearby protected areas includes the Tahunamaere Scenic Reserve, Rawhitiroa Road Conservation Area, Waitiri Scenic Reserve and Omoana Bush QEII. Canopy vegetation primarily consists of mixed tawa/hardwood/broadleaf with areas of manuka and kanuka present in some areas. Notable species are likely to be present including Tawhirikaro. Birdlife recorded in the area includes the New Zealand falcon and the North Island brown kiwi, which are both identified as ‘Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable’. Common native birds in the area include the North Island robin, fantail, bellbird, grey warbler, pied tomtit, tui and New Zealand pigeon. Other notable native fauna will be present including bats, reptiles and invertebrates. • QEII 5/06/282: The QEII 5/06/282 KNE is located on private land on Richmond Road, near Lepperton, 7 km north of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont Ecological District and located within the Waiongana catchment. The site is made up of a 1.9 ha remnant of semi coastal forest adjacent to the Mangarewa Stream near Lepperton. The remnant is protected with a QEII covenant and securely fenced, and the site lies in close proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Lepperton bush and Te Wairoa. The forest type is a mix of semi-coastal/lowland tawa/pukatea/kohekohe forest. Other

208

canopy trees include titoki, rewarewa and puriri. Plant species in the sub canopy include karaka, mamaku, kawakawa, pigeonwood, various Coprosmas , silver fern and mahoe. Native birdlife recorded include the New Zealand pigeon, Tui, grey warbler, fantail, silvereye and sacred kingfisher. Fish life in the Mangarewa Stream includes the ‘At Risk’ longfin eel and redfin bully. Other aquatic life includes the shortfin eel, freshwater crayfish, freshwater shrimp and the introduced brown trout. Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates. • NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetland: The NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetlands KNE is located on private land on Kekeua Road, 3.5 km northwest of Pungarehu in west Taranaki. The site is located in the Egmont Ecological District and within the Whanganui stream catchment. The KNE area is made up of three small forest remnants in close proximity to each other in rough lahar mounds and depressions on the west Taranaki ring plain. One remnant is a wetland and the other two contain a mix of wet and dry areas. A mix of forest types is present including semi-coastal/lowland tawa/pukatea/kohekohe forest and lowland swamp forest containing pukatea and swamp maire. The remnants lie in close proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Donald’s Bush and Stent Road Bush. The forest remnants are good examples of semi-coastal tawa forest and are located in an ‘Acutely Threatened’ LENZ environment (F5.2b - less than 10% indigenous forest remains in this environment type). The main canopy is a mix of tawa, kohekohe, rimu, pukatea, rewarewa and is generally in good condition. The understorey and ground cover is in good condition in the wetland area although sparser in the drier areas due to stock browse. The understory consists of a number of shrub species including kawakawa and coprosma along with a wide range of ferns. Of note is a small area containing swamp maire (rated Regionally Distinctive). Recorded native birdlife includes the New Zealand pigeon, grey warbler, fantail and sacred kingfisher. Notable native freshwater fish are present including banded kokopu and brown mudfish. Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates. • Mangapuni: The Mangapuni KNE is located on private land 12 kms southeast of Waitotara in south Taranaki. The site is within the Matemateaonga Ecological District and the Waitotara River catchment. The site covers 749 ha and is made up of a mix of original lowland forest (over 60%) and modified regenerating native forest typical of the South Taranaki area. The whole area is protected with a QEII covenant. Other nearby KNEs include: Skilton’s Bush, Lake Waikato, Lake Waikare and the Waitotara Wharangi Block. Canopy vegetation of the original forest area primarily consists of a mix of beech, hardwood, broadleaf and podocarp. The modified areas are dominated by manuka, kanuka with mahoe, rewarewa, hinau and young emergent black beech is present in places. Together with black beech, other notable species may be present including Tawhirikaro. Birdlife recorded in the area includes the New Zealand falcon and the North Island brown kiwi, which are both identified as ‘Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable’. Common native birds in the area include the fantail, bellbird, grey warbler, pied tomtit, tui and New Zealand pigeon. Other notable native fauna will be present including bats, reptiles and invertebrates.

Copies of the inventory sheets for the eight new sites are attached to this item.

Decision-making considerations Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002, (planning, decision-making and accountability), has been considered and documented in the preparation of this agenda item. The recommendations made in this item comply with the decision-making obligations of the Act.

209

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

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

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

Appendices/Attachments Documents #1666995 (Waimoku Wetland); #1661425 (Forest & Bees Takou Reserve); #1671439 (QEII 5/06/282); #1661838 (Mangapuni); #1671721 (Redpath Bush); #1622447 (Korito Heights); #1668200 (Cardenica Woodlot); and #1661134 (NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetlands).

Notable native freshwater fish are present including giant kokopu (Galaxias Waimoku Wetland argenteus). Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates.

At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Ecological values TRC reference: BD/7154 Ecological district: Egmont Ecological values Rank Comment Other reference: LENZ environment: F5.2b Rarity and High Contains the ‘Regionally Distinctive’ Whau (Entelea arborescens) and

distinctiveness giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus) Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation that is poorly represented in Taranaki and GPS: E 1681675 , N 5669637 Area: 0.6 ha classified as F5.2b - an 'acutely threatened' LENZ environment.

Ecological context Medium The site provides connectivity to other Key Native Ecosystems nearby Location including Matekai Park and Mckie QEII Covenant. The Waimoku Wetland KNE is located on privately owned land on Shearer Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes influence the site. Under appropriate management it will remain resilient to existing and potential threats. Drive in Oakura. The site is in the Egmont Ecological District and located within the Waimoku stream catchment.

Management threats and response General description Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of the Waimoku Wetland site’s ecological values are as follows: The KNE area is made up of a regenerating wetland area with the Waimoku 210 stream running along the western edge. Little original vegetation remains but the wetland has been planted in native species and is regenerating. The Threats to ecological Potential Comment wetland contains a considerable number of pest plant species which will values threat require significant effort to bring under control. The site lies in close Pest animals High Possums, cats, rats, hedgehogs and mustelids. proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Matekai Park and Mckie QEII Covenant. Weeds High Woolly nightshade, blackberry, selaginella, bamboo, Kahili ginger, Crack Ecological features willow, and Tradescantia. With the threat of mignonette vine invading from adjacent property. Flora Habitat modification High The wetland has been significantly modified in the past but is regenerating The wetland is dominated by planted flax (Phormium tenax) and cabbage to a near natural state. trees (Cordyline australis) with natural regeneration of cutty grass (Carex geminata). Of note is the presence of the regionally distinctive tree whau (Entelea arborescens). The flora of the site will continue to regenerate into a more natural state if pest plant issues can be managed.

Fauna

Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), grey warbler (Gerygone igata), fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa) and sacred kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus vagans).

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes Site is protected by an existing QEII covenant. formal agreement

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes The landowner is actively managing pest plants at the site and is motivated to also manage pest animals.

211

Fauna Forest & Bees Takou Reserve Birdlife recorded in the area includes the New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) and the North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx australis mantelli), which are both identified as ‘Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable’. At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Common native birds in the area include the North Island robin (Petroica longipes), fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa), bellbird (Anthornis melanura), grey TRC reference: BD/9563 Ecological district: Matemateaonga warbler (Gerygone igata), pied tomtit (Petroica macrocephala), tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae) and New Zealand pigeon Other reference: LENZ environment: F1.1d (481.3 ha) (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae). F7.2a (0.3 ha) Other notable native fauna will be present including bats, reptiles and Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C invertebrates.

GPS: 1739591E – 5640092N Area: 481.6 ha Ecological values

Location Ecological values Rank Comment The Forest & Bees Takou Reserve KNE is located on privately owned land Rarity and High Contains the ‘Threatened’ New Zealand falcon and North Island near Omoana in eastern Taranaki. The site is within the Matemateaonga distinctiveness brown kiwi. Likely to contain other notable species including bats, Ecological District. reptiles and invertebrates. Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation on F7.2a – an ‘At Risk’ LENZ General description environment. The greater area contains indigenous vegetation on 212 F1.1d (‘Less reduced, better protected’) LENZ environment. The KNE covers 481.6 ha and is a mix of original and cut over lowland forest with small areas of modified regenerating native forest in places. The forest Ecological context High Close to and provides connectivity to Tahunamaere Scenic Reserve, is typical of original and regenerating forest found in the eastern Taranaki Rawhitiroa Road Conservation Area, Waitiri Scenic Reserve, area. The KNE is surrounded by adjacent native forest including a 6.5km Waitotara Conservation Area and Omoana Bush KNE. Also provides core habitat for the threatened New Zealand falcon and North Island boundary with the Waitotara Conservation Area. Other nearby protected brown kiwi. areas includes the Tahunamaere Scenic Reserve, Rawhitiroa Road Conservation Area, Waitiri Scenic Reserve and Omoana Bush QEII. The site Sustainability Positive In good vegetative condition and large in area. Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate management, it is located within the Whenuakura River catchment. can remain resilient to existing or potential threats.

Ecological features Vegetation Canopy vegetation primarily consists of mixed tawa/hardwood/broadleaf with areas of manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) and kanuka (Kunzea robusta) present in some areas. Notable species are likely to be present including Tawhirikaro (Pittosporum cornifolium).

Management threats and response Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of Forest & Bees Takou Reserve site’s ecological values are as follows:

Threats to ecological Level of Comment values risk Pest animals Medium to Possums, goats, cats, mustelids, and rats. high Weeds Low Unknown although likely to be insignificant.

Habitat modification Low Low threat from low scale sustainable timber harvest.

Site protection measures addressing potential threats and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes Landowner in discussion with QEII regarding a covenant for

formal agreement the whole site. 213

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes The landowner currently undertakes some pest animal control.

(Todiramphus sanctus vagans). Fish life in the Mangarewa stream includes QEII 5/06/282 the ‘At Risk’ longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) and redfin bully

At a glance (last updated: April 2016) (Gobiomorphus huttoni). Other aquatic life includes the shortfin eel (Anguilla australis), freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons), TRC reference: BD/9565 Ecological district: Egmont freshwater shrimp (Paratya) and the introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta). Other reference: LENZ environment: F5.2b Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates. Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C GPS: E1705022 N5676192 Area: 1.9 ha Ecological values

Ecological values Rank Comment Location Rarity and Medium Contains the ‘At Risk’ longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) and redfin bully (Gobiomorphus huttoni). The QEII 5/06/282 KNE is located on privately owned land on Richmond distinctiveness Road near Lepperton, 7 km North of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation that is poorly represented in Taranaki and Ecological District and located within the Waiongana catchment. classified as F5.2b - an 'acutely threatened' LENZ environment. Ecological context Medium The site provides connectivity to other Key Native Ecosystems nearby including Te Wairoa and Lepperton bush. General description Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate The KNE area is made up of a 1.9 ha remnant of semi costal forest adjacent management it will remain resilient to existing and potential threats. 214 to the Mangarewa stream very near Lepperton. The remnant is protected with a QEII covenant and securely fenced. The site lies in close proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Lepperton bush and Te Management threats and response Wairoa. Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of the QEII 5/06/282 site’s ecological values are as follows: Ecological features

Flora Threats to ecological Potential Comment The forest type is a mix of semi-coastal/lowland tawa/pukatea/kohekohe values threat forest. Other canopy trees include titoki (Alectryon excelsus), rewarewa Pest animals High Possums, cats, rats, hedgehogs and mustelids. (Knightia excelsa) and puriri (Vitex lucens). A number of other plant species are also present in the sub canopy including karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus), mamaku (Cyathea medullaris), kawakawa (Piper excelsum), Weeds Medium Woolly nightshade, old mans beard, barberry, inkweed, hydrangea, holly, pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea), various Coprosmas (Coprosma spp.), cherry tree, Jerusalem cherry, sycamore, African clubmoss, Aroid lily and Tradescantia. silver fern (Cyathea dealbata) and mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus). Habitat modification High The remnant is fenced but the fence is no longer stock proof in some Fauna areas. Stock grazing is modifying the habitat in places.

Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include the New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), Tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), grey warbler (Gerygone igata), fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa), silvereye (Zosterops lateralis lateralis) and sacred kingfisher

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes The site is legally protected with a QEII covenant. formal agreement

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes Site is within the self help possum control area and receives regular pest animal control for possums.

215

Fauna Mangapuni Birdlife recorded in the area includes the New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) and the North Island brown kiwi (Apteryx australis mantelli), which are both identified as ‘Threatened, Nationally Vulnerable’. At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Common native birds in the area include the fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa), bellbird (Anthornis melanura), grey warbler (Gerygone igata), pied tomtit TRC reference: BD/9564 Ecological district: Matemateaonga (Petroica macrocephala toitoi), tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae) and New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae). Other reference: LENZ environment: F1.3b (749.0 ha)

Other notable native fauna will be present including bats, reptiles and Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C invertebrates.

GPS: 1760319E – 5600293N Area: 749.0 ha

Ecological values Location The Mangapuni KNE is located on privately owned land 12kms southeast of Ecological values Rank Comment Waitotara in south Taranaki. The site is within the Matemateaonga Ecological Rarity and High Contains the ‘Threatened’ New Zealand falcon and North Island District. distinctiveness brown kiwi. Contains the Regionally Distinctive black beech. Other threatened and notable species are likely to be present. General description Representativeness Low Contains indigenous vegetation on F1.3b (‘Less reduced, better

The Mangapuni KNE covers 749ha and is made up of a mix of original protected’) LENZ environment. 216 lowland forest (over sixty percent) and modified regenerating native forest Ecological context High Close to and provides connectivity with Skilton’s Bush, Lake Waikato, typical of the south Taranaki area. The whole site is protected with a QEII Lake Waikare and the Waitotara Wharangi Block KNE’s. Also covenant. Other nearby KNE’s include Skilton’s Bush, Lake Waikato, Lake provides core habitat for the threatened New Zealand falcon and Waikare and the Waitotara Wharangi Block. The site is located within the North Island brown kiwi. Waitotara River catchment. Sustainability Positive In good vegetative condition and large in area. Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate management, it can remain resilient to existing or potential threats. Ecological features

Vegetation Canopy vegetation of the original forest area primarily consists of a mix of beech, hardwood, broadleaf and podocarp. The modified areas are dominated by manuka (Leptospermum scoparium), kanuka (Kunzea robusta) with mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus subsp. ramiflorus), rewarewa (Knightia excelsa), hinau (Elaeocarpus dentatus) and young emergent black beech (Fuscospora solandri) present in places. Black beech is a notable species for this site and other notable species may be present including Tawhirikaro (Pittosporum cornifolium).

Management threats and response Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of Mangapuni site’s ecological values are as follows:

Threats to ecological Level of Comment values risk Pest animals Medium to Possums, goats, cats, mustelids, and rats. high Weeds Low Localised areas of gorse.

Habitat modification Low Covenant conditions apply.

Site protection measures addressing potential threats and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes Covered by a QEII covenant.

formal agreement 217

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes The landowner undertakes some pest animal control.

Fauna Redpath Bush Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include the New Zealand At a glance (last updated: April 2016) pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), Tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae), grey warbler (Gerygone igata) and fantail (Rhipidura TRC reference: BD/9540 Ecological district: Egmont fuliginosa). Notable freshwater fish species recorded from the Kurapete Other reference: LENZ environment: F5.2b stream nearby include giant kokopu(Galaxias argenteus) and lamprey

(Geotria australis). Good habitat exists for notable reptiles and Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C invertebrates. GPS: 1706301 N 5665601 E Area: 6.2 ha

Ecological values Location Ecological values Rank Comment The Redpath Bush KNE is located on privately owned land on Tarata Road Rarity and High Contains the “At Risk’ giant kokopu (Galaxias argenteus) and ‘Threatened’ approximately 2 km East of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont Ecological lamprey (Geotria australis). Both species are also ‘Regionally Distinctive’. District and located within the Waitara catchment. distinctiveness Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation that is poorly represented in Taranaki and classified as F5.2b - an 'acutely threatened' LENZ environment. General description Ecological context Medium The site provides connectivity to other Key Native Ecosystems nearby The KNE area is made up of two remnants of lowland forest with a total size including Maketawa stream forests and the Norfolk road KNE. 218 of 6.2 ha. The larger remnant is bordered by large sycamore trees and has a Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate mostly tawa dominated canopy with some regenerating native vegetation management it will remain resilient to existing and potential threats. surrounding a small creek. The smaller remnant lies along the Kurapete stream. Both remnants are fenced, but the smaller remnant has some stock Management threats and response invasion from the other side of the Kurapete stream. The site lies in close Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of the Redpath Bush site’s proximity to other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Maketawa ecological values are as follows: stream forests and the Norfolk road KNE.

Ecological features Threats to ecological Potential Comment values threat Flora Pest animals High Possums, cats, rats, hedgehogs and mustelids. The main canopy of the site is dominated by tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa), with other canopy trees including pukatea (Laurelia nova-zelandiae), kahikatea Weeds Medium Old mans beard, blackberry, African clubmoss, ivy, cherry, and (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum) and rewarewa Tradescantia. (Knightia excelsa). A number of other plant species are also present in the canopy and sub-canopy. These include, kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile), Habitat modification High The remnants are fenced but there is stock invasion from across the Kurapete stream. Stock grazing is modifying the habitat in places. kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa), toropapa (Alseuosmia macrophylla), mamaku (Cyathea medullaris), kawakawa (Piper excelsum), pigeonwood

(Hedycarya arborea), round leaved coprosma (Coprosma rotundifolia), silver tree fern (Cyathea dealbata), mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus), kanono (Coprosma grandifolia), and supplejack (Ripogonum scandens).

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes The owners are working with QEII to legally protect the site. formal agreement

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes Site is within the self help possum control area and receives regular pest animal control for possums.

219

seedlings and saplings are also common. The area falls within the ‘Less Korito Heights reduced, better protected’ LENZ environment F5.3b.

Fauna At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Native birdlife recorded in and around the Korito Heights KNE area include the New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), grey warbler TRC reference: BD/9554 Ecological district: Egmont (Gerygone igata), fantail (Rhipidura fuliginosa), tui (Prosthemadera Other reference: 1622447 (this inventory sheet) LENZ environment: novaeseelandiae), and silvereye (Zosterops lateralis). Very good habitat exists for notable freshwater fish such as shortjaw kokopu (Galaxias F5.3b (20.ha) postvectis) and koaro (Galaxias brevipinnis). The ‘At Risk’ longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) is present along with the native freshwater crayfish Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C (Paranephrops planifrons). GPS: E1693562 N5660440 Area: 20ha

Location Ecological values

The Korito Heights KNE is located on private land approximately 13km south Ecological values Rank Comment of New Plymouth in the Egmont Ecological District. Contains good habitat for the ‘At Risk’ longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) Rarity and Medium distinctiveness and other notable fauna species. General description Representativeness Low Contains vegetation associated with (F5.3b) ‘Less reduced, better The Korito Heights KNE area consists of a moderately sized (20ha) protected’ LENZ environment. 220 modified/regenerating lowland forest remnant on the gully margins of a Ecological context High Provides additional habitat and greater connectivity with other Key Native major tributary of the Mangawarawara Stream. The canopy is dominated Ecosystems in this area such as the Egmont National Park, Alfred Road mainly by kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa) although miro (Prumnopitys and Carrington Road A. ferruginea) and hinau (Elaeocarpus dentatus)are present in places. The KNE Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes still influence the site and with appropriate area is long and narrow and covers the length of the whole property from management, it can remain resilient to existing or potential threats. The Egmont National Park to the lower property boundary (almost 2kms of site will have the additional benefit of being formally protected. stream margin). The area provides very good connectivity and compliments other KNEs and habitats in the area such as Egmont National Park, Alfred Road wetland and Carrington Road A. Threats to ecological Potential Comment values threat

Ecological features Pest animals High Goats, possums, cats, mustelids, hedgehogs and rodents. Flora Although the canopy is dominated by kamahi other species such as miro, Weeds Medium Scattered areas of barberry, blackberry, gorse, and Himalayan toro (Myrsine salicina), hinau, northern rata (Metrosideros robusta) tawa honeysuckle. (Beilschmiedia tawa) and rewarewa (Knightia excelsa) are present and are Habitat modification Low The covenanted areas will be securely fenced. in good condition. A good sub canopy and understorey is also present and includes mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus subsp. ramiflorus), wineberry

(Aristotelia serrata), raukawa (Raukaua edgerleyi), rangiora (Brachyglottis repanda), pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea), mountain cabbage tree (Cordyline indivisa) and hangehange (Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium). Tree ferns and ground ferns are common in places and

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes The landowner is currently working with QEII towards a formal agreement covenant for the habitat.

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes The landowner undertakes occasional pest animal control as part of the possum self help programme.

221

The regionally distinctive plants swamp maire, tawhirikaro (Pittosporum Cardenica Woodlot cornifolium) and the fern Deparia petersenii subsp. congrua are present at the site. At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Fauna TRC reference: BD/9561 Ecological district: Egmont Other reference: LENZ environment: F5.2b Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include the New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), Tui (Prosthemadera Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C novaeseelandiae), grey warbler (Gerygone igata) and fantail (Rhipidura GPS: E1703611 N5673407 Area: 2.1 ha fuliginosa). Good habitat exists for notable freshwater fish, reptiles and invertebrates. Location Ecological values The Cardenica Woodlot KNE is located on privately owned land on Clearview Road near Lepperton, 7 km North of Inglewood. The site is in the Egmont Ecological values Rank Comment ecological district and located within the Waiongana catchment. Rarity and High Contains the ‘Regionally Distinctive’ swamp maire (Syzygium maire),

distinctiveness Tawhirikaro (Pittosporum cornifolium) and Deparia petersenii subsp. Congrua General description Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation that is poorly represented in Taranaki and The KNE area is made up of a 2.1 ha remnant of semi costal forest adjacent classified as F5.2b - an 'acutely threatened' LENZ environment. 222 to the Te Wairoa KNE. The remnant is fenced, but in some areas the fence is Ecological context Medium The site provides connectivity to other Key Native Ecosystems nearby no longer stock proof. The site lies in close proximity to other Key Native including Te Wairoa, Lepperton bush and Tarurutangi swamp. Ecosystems in the area, including Lepperton bush and Tarurutangi swamp. Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate management it will remain resilient to existing and potential threats. Ecological features Flora Management threats and response Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of the Cardenica Woodlot A mix of forest types is present including semi-coastal/lowland site’s ecological values are as follows: tawa/pukatea/kohekohe forest and lowland swamp forest containing pukatea (Laurelia nova-zelandiae) and swamp maire (Syzygium maire). Other canopy trees include titoki (Alectryon excelsus), and rewarewa (Knightia Threats to ecological Potential Comment excelsa). values threat

Pest animals High Possums, cats, rats, hedgehogs and mustelids. A number of other plant species are also present in the canopy and sub- canopy. These include kahikatea (Dacrycarpus dacrydioides), puriri (Vitex lucens), karaka (Corynocarpus laevigatus), mamaku (Cyathea medullaris), Weeds Medium Woolly nightshade, blackberry, selaginella, Aroid lily and Tradescantia. kawakawa (Piper excelsum), pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea), various Coprosmas (Coprosma spp.), silver fern (Cyathea dealbata), mahoe Habitat modification High The remnant is fenced but the fence is no longer stock proof in some (Melicytus ramiflorus), nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida), and supplejack areas. Stock grazing is modifying the habitat in places. (Ripogonum scandens).

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes The site is legally protected by a consent condition under the formal agreement RMA section 221.

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes Site is within the self help possum control area and receives regular pest animal control for possums.

223

Coprosma areolata along with a wide range of ferns. Of note is a small area NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and containing swamp maire (Syzygium maire) (rated Regionally Distinctive).

Wetlands Fauna At a glance (last updated: April 2016) Native birdlife recorded in and around the KNE include the New Zealand TRC reference: BD/9562 Ecological district: Egmont pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae), grey warbler (Gerygone igata), fantail Other reference: LENZ environment: F5.2b (Rhipidura fuliginosa) and sacred kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus vagans). Notable native freshwater fish are present including banded kokopu Land tenure: Private Protection status: A, B, C (Galaxias fasciatus) and brown mudfish (Neochanna apoda). Good habitat GPS: E 1672627 , N 5653877 Area: 7.3 ha exists for notable reptiles and invertebrates.

Location Ecological values

The NRGE Farms Limited Bush Block and Wetlands KNE is located on Ecological values Rank Comment privately owned land on Kekeua road, 3.5km northwest of Pungarehu in Rarity and High Contains the ‘Regionally Distinctive’ swamp maire (Syzygium maire), west Taranaki. The site is in the Egmont Ecological District and located banded kokopu (Galaxias fasciatus) and brown mudfish (Neochanna distinctiveness within the Whanganui stream catchment. apoda). General description Representativeness High Contains indigenous vegetation that is poorly represented in Taranaki and classified as F5.2b - an 'acutely threatened' LENZ environment. 224 The KNE area is made up of three small forest remnants in close proximity Ecological context Medium The remnant provides connectivity to other Key Native Ecosystems to each other in rough lahar mounds and depressions on the west Taranaki nearby including Donald’s Bush and Stent Road Bush. ring plain. One remnant is a wetland and the other two contain a mix of wet Sustainability Positive Key ecological processes still influence the site. Under appropriate and dry areas. A mix of forest types is present including semi- management it will remain resilient to existing and potential threats. coastal/lowland tawa/pukatea/kohekohe forest and lowland swamp forest containing pukatea and swamp maire. The remnant lies in close proximity to Management threats and response other Key Native Ecosystems in the area, including Donald’s Bush and Stent Potential and actual threats to the sustainability of NRGE Farms Limited Road Bush. Bush Block and Wetlands site’s ecological values are as follows:

Ecological features Flora Threats to ecological Potential Comment values threat The forest remnants are good examples of semi-coastal tawa forest and are located in an ‘Acutely Threatened’ LENZ environment (F5.2b, less than 10% Pest animals High Possums, cats, rats, hedgehogs and mustelids. indigenous forest remains in this environment type). The main canopy is a mix of tawa (Beilschmiedia tawa), kohekohe (Dysoxylum spectabile), rimu Weeds Medium Woolly nightshade, blackberry, selaginella and inkweed. (Dacrydium cupressinum), pukatea (Laurelia novae-zelandiae), rewarewa (Knightia excelsa) and is generally in good condition. The understorey and Habitat modification High The remnants are currently unfenced and grazing is extensive in some ground cover is in good condition in the wetland area although sparser in the areas. drier areas due to stock browse. The understory present consists of a number of shrub species including kawakawa (Piper excelsum) and

Site protection measures addressing potential and actual threats are as follows:

Site protection Yes/No Description

A Public ownership or Yes Landowners are willing to enter into a MOE for this area. formal agreement

B Regulatory protection by Yes General regional or district rules might apply. local government

C Active protection Yes Site is within the self help possum control area and receives regular pest animal control for possums.

225

Agenda reports

Policy and Planning Committee, May 2016

Item 7

Lake Rotorangi environmental monitoring report (3 MB)