I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment Committee will be held on:

Date: Wednesday, 29 June 2016 Time: 9.00am Venue: Tararua Room Horizons Regional Council 11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chair Cr CI Sheldon Deputy Chair Cr GM McKellar Councillors Cr JJ Barrow Cr EB Gordon (ex officio) Cr MC Guy Cr RJ Keedwell Cr PJ Kelly JP DR Pearce BE Rollinson

Michael McCartney Chief Executive

Contact Telephone: 0508 800 800 Email: [email protected] Postal Address: Private Bag 11025, Palmerston North 4442

Full Agendas are available on Horizons Regional Council website www.horizons.govt.nz

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted. Items in the agenda may be subject to amendment or withdrawal at the meeting.

for further information regarding this agenda, please contact: Julie Kennedy, 06 9522 800

CONTACTS 24 hr Freephone : [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz 0508 800 800

SERVICE Kairanga Marton Taumarunui Woodville CENTRES Cnr Rongotea & Hammond Street 34 Maata Street Cnr Vogel (SH2) & Tay Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Rds, Sts Palmerston North

REGIONAL Palmerston North Wanganui HOUSES 11-15 Victoria Avenue 181 Guyton Street

DEPOTS Levin Taihape 11 Bruce Road Torere Road Ohotu

POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 ADDRESS FAX 06 9522 929

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Apologies and Leave of Absence 5

2 Public Speaking Rights 5

3 Supplementary Items 5

4 Members’ Conflict of Interest 5

5 Confirmation of Minutes Environment Committee meeting, 11 May 2016 7

6 Environmental Education Report No: 16-130 15

7 Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Report No: 16-131 21 Annex A - Current Consent Status for WWTP's in the Region. 35 Annex B - Current Compliance Status for WWTP's in the Region. 38

8 Freshwater & Science Progress Report Report No: 16-132 41 Annex A - Freshwater & Science progress report 43 Annex B - Integrated Storm Water Management Plan for the Arawhata sub-catchment 114

9 Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Report No: 16-133 125 Annex A - Freshwater Operational Plan 127

10 Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Report No: 16-134 175 Annex A - Habitat Protection progress report 177 Annex B - Animals progress report 185 Annex C - Plants progress report 194

11 Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Report No: 16-135 215 Annex A - Biodiversity Operational Plan 217

12 Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Report No: 16-136 255 Annex A - Regional Pest Management Operational Plan 2016-17 257

13 One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Report No: 16-137 301 Annex A - One Plan Implementation Dashboard Report, June 2016 305

Page 3

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

14 Members’ Questions

Page 4

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

AGENDA

1 Apologies and Leave of Absence At the close of the Agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Public Speaking Rights Notification to speak is required by 4pm on the working day prior to the meeting. Further information is available on www.horizons.govt.nz\Council\ or by phoning 0508 800 800.

Petitions/Deputations Deputations: Written notice (fewer than 150 words) concerning the nature of the deputation must be lodged with the Chief Executive at least 2 working days before the date of the meeting and subsequently approved by the Chairperson. Petitions: Written notice to the Chief Executive is required at least 2 working days before the date of the meeting.

Further information is available on www.horizons.govt.nz\Council\ or by phoning 0508 800 800.

3 Supplementary Items To consider, and if thought fit, to pass a resolution to permit the Committee/Council to consider any further items relating to items following below which do not appear on the Order Paper of this meeting and/or the meeting to be held with the public excluded. Such resolution is required to be made pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended), and the Chairperson must advise: (i) The reason why the item was not on the Order Paper, and (ii) The reason why the discussion of this item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

4 Members’ Conflict of Interest Members are reminded of their obligation to declare any conflicts of interest they might have in respect of the items on this Agenda.

Page 5

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Minutes of the fourteenth meeting of the ninth triennium of the Environment Committee held at 9.00am on Wednesday 11 May 2016, in the Tararua Room, Horizons Regional Council, 11-15 Victoria Avenue, Palmerston North.

PRESENT Crs CI Sheldon (Chair), EB Gordon (ex officio), MC Guy, RJ Keedwell, PJ Kelly JP, GM McKellar, DR Pearce, BE Rollinson. IN ATTENDANCE Councillors LR Burnell (to 2.50pm), PW Rieger Chief Executive Mr MJ McCartney Committee Secretary Mrs M Boekman / Ms K Booth ALSO PRESENT At various times during the meeting: Mrs S Craig (Acting Group Manager Corporate & Governance), Dr N Peet (Group Manager Strategy & Regulation), Mr R Strong (Group Manager River Management), Mr G Shirley (Group Manager Regional Services & Information), Mr B Martyn (Manager Biosecurity & Habitat Protection), Mr Bevin (Regulatory Manager), Mr C Davey (Natural Resources & Partnerships Coordinator–Plants), Dr J Roygard (Freshwater & Science Manager), Mr L Brown (Senior Scientist-Water Quality), Mr A Madden (Environmental Coordinator Biodiversity), Mrs C Hesselin (Acting Media & Communications Manager), Mrs H Thomas (Environmental Educator), Mr S Rix (Coordinator Regional Response) Mr E Dodd (Environmental Programme Coordinator Animals), Ms A Irvine, Ms J Hessell, Mr R Kemper (Department of Conservation), Dr C Teo-Sherrell, Mr J Girling, (Chair Wildlife Foxton Trust), Mayor A Watson, Mr R McNeil, Mr H Waugh, Ms J Saywell, Mr A van Bussel (Rangitikei District Council), Mayor G Smith, Mr R Swadel, Mr R van Bentum, Mr P Walker (Palmerston North City Council), members of the public and a member of the press.

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting.

APOLOGIES

ENV 16-108 Moved Keedwell/Gordon That an apology be received from Cr Barrow. CARRIED

The Chair advised that the Wildlife Foxton Trust presentation would follow Public Speaking Rights.

PUBLIC SPEAKING RIGHTS There was a request from Dr Chris Teo-Sherrell for public speaking rights. Dr Teo-Sherrell spoke to items 9 and 10 regarding the presentations by Rangitikei District Council and Palmerston North City Council on their Wastewater Treatment Plants updates. He requested that presentations or reports by the region’s councils, be incorporated in the Committee agenda in their entirety so they could be read before the meeting, instead of requiring physical attendance at the meeting to hear the presentations. Dr Teo-Sherrell answered questions of clarification.

Page 7

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

SUPPLEMENTARY ITEMS There were no supplementary items to be considered.

MEMBERS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Cr McKellar noted that the hives involved in a polluted stream incident in Bunnythorpe were on his property. Further comment was made during the Regulatory item.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ENV 16-109 Moved Pearce/Kelly That the Committee: confirms the minutes of the Environment Committee meeting held on 9 March 2016 as a correct record, and notes that the recommendations were adopted by the Council on 30 March 2016. CARRIED

MATTERS ARISING In response to a question regarding the Santoft groundwater levels mentioned in the Freshwater and Science Progress Report, Dr Peet commented that a public meeting date was still to be decided and that a newsletter was being prepared to keep people informed.

PRESENTATION - WILDLIFE FOXTON TRUST Report No 16-79 Mr John Girling, Chair Wildlife Foxton Trust, spoke to his presentation introducing the Trust. He described the Trust’s key personnel, organisations, local trusts and volunteers they work with. He highlighted a pest control project run in conjunction with Horizons and Foxton Beach School and he also highlighted their role of providing environmental education to school students and to visitors to the area. Mr Girling described the draft design of the Wildlife Foxton Centre highlighting its role as a visitor attraction centre where native fish, lizards and birds were displayed. Mr Girling believed the Wildlife Foxton Trust fitted well within the Accelerate25, Regional Growth Strategy document. He outlined its educational and tourist potential, points of difference with other regional visitor centres, the publications it produced and the Trust’s funding requirements. Mr Girling answered Members’ questions of clarification. In answer to a Member’s question, Mr Girling commented that there were problems with feral cats killing birds on the estuary. Mr Girling requested involvement with EnviroSchools and support from Horizons with regional grants and funding opportunities particularly those associated with tourism and planting. Mr Girling provided handouts of the presentation and some examples of the Trust's publications. The Chairman requested that the Wildlife Foxton Trust provide some publications for the Council’s front desk and suggested that Councillors may wish to attend a trip to the Centre. The Chairman thanked Mr Girling and his supporters for the presentation and Cr Burnell thanked them for the Godwit Newsletters.

Page 8

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

ENV 16-110 Moved Keedwell/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: : a. receives the presentation from Mr John Girling, Chair Wildlife Foxton Trust. CARRIED

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION Report No 16-80 The purpose of this item was to provide Members of Council’s Environment Committee with an Environmental Education progress report for the period 27 February to 30 April 2016. Mrs Hesselin (Communications Advisor) introduced the item. Mrs Thomas (Environmental Educator) spoke to the report taking it as being read. She highlighted some of the Annual Plan Targets in the report. She noted that the Waiora sessions exceeded target measures and this had impacted on some other measures. The lower recorded measure of workshops was due to bad weather, cancellations and the induction of a new facilitator. Mrs Thomas noted that community engagement measures recorded in the report were accumulated numbers rather than separate and individual sessions as had been recorded in previous reports. Mrs Thomas highlighted the increase of Waiora sessions, the confirmation of Enviroschool funding for three years from Palmerston North City Council and from the Ruapehu District Council. She also commented on the successful events in celebration of the launch of the second Action Plan for the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord. Mrs Thomas noted that the recent holiday programme held with Active Minds Aotearoa was missed from the report. In response to Members’ questions Mrs Thomas provided an indication of what the predicted end of year targets might be but noted that it was difficult to forecast because the number of workshops, Waiora sessions or engagements could fluctuate. The Chief Executive also explained that the department had faced recent resource challenges and was not operating at full capacity. Members asked further questions and Mrs Thomas provided details around how the PNCC funding would be implemented, she also noted that the Whanganui Enviroschool activity report was available on request as it was now too large to include in the report. ENV 16-111 Moved Pearce/Keedwell That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-80. CARRIED

REGULATORY MANAGEMENT AND RURAL ADVICE ACTIVITY REPORT - FEBRUARY TO APRIL 2016 Report No 16-81 This report updated Members on regulatory activity for the period February to April 2016. It also included information on Rural Advice activity as that related to implementation of land use consents for intensive agriculture. Dr Peet (Group Manager Strategy & Regulation) introduced the report. He commented that there had been significant areas of work around consenting processes for Territorial Authorities’ (TA) Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) and around land use and nutrient management consenting. In response to a previous question regarding a stream pollution incident, Dr Peet commented that the company involved was served with an abatement notice and it paid for the clean up work. Mr Bevin (Regulatory Manager) confirmed that the complainants would be contacted regarding action taken.

Page 9

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Mr Bevin highlighted the main points of the report. He updated Members on consenting progress of Feilding Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), New Zealand Energy (NZE) and Whanganui District Council (WDC). He noted that Eketahuna and Paihatua WWTP submissions (10 and 11 submissions respectively) had been received most of which were in opposition and that the Shannon WWTP land based irrigation system was operational. Mr Bevin referred Members to Annex A and commented that the graphs for Manawatu District Council (MDC) related to historical non compliance matters. He then provided the timeframes for each of the plants noting that Horizons had been working with MDC to prioritise work to be done. In response to a question, Mr Bevin outlined the process of formal regulatory response and the various factors required to be considered when making a decision around enforcement. Following a question about the information provided in the conversion tables (Tables 3 and 4) and leaching figure (Figure 1), there was discussion about factors affecting levels of information provided in the report. Mr Bevin responded to Member’s questions around Chromium in the Tutaenui Stream, in association with the Rangitikei District Council’s (RDC) Marton WWTP, he commented that Horizons was interested in the Dissolved Chromium and whether this was in the form of Chromium VI also known as Hexavalent. RDC were intending to do further investigation when flow returned to the Tutaenui Stream. Mr Bevin then outlined the treatment options for RDC if leachate from Bonny Glenn was the problem. There was further discussion around consenting and re-consenting processes for TAs’ WWTPs. Dr Peet assured Members that WWTPs were monitored regularly and significant issues were dealt with promptly. There was further full discussion around the regulatory processes, reporting and non compliance issues. ENV 16-112 Moved Guy/Pearce That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-81 and Annex. CARRIED

RANGITIKEI DISTRICT COUNCIL UPDATE ON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PERFORMANCE Report No 16-82 Mayor Andy Watson, Ross McNeil (Chief Executive), Hamish Waugh (Infrastructure Group Manager), Joanna Saywell (Asset Manager – Utilities); and Andrew van Bussel (Operations Manager) from the Rangitikei District Council (RDC) provided a presentation update on the performance of the Taihape, Hunterville and Marton Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP). Mayor Watson introduced the presentation. Mr Waugh spoke to the presentation. He updated Members on the investigation on the Tutaenui Stream and the pretreating of leachate pre-treat required by Bonny Glenn for its continued acceptance at the Marton WWTP. He noted that RDC had made no decision yet whether to accept or not accept the leachate. Mr Waugh commented on some of the compliance issues associated with some conditions at the Hunterville and Taihape WWTPs and that monitoring indicated no adverse environmental effects. Mr Waugh then went through the compliance pathway and milestones agreed with Horizons in April 2016. Ms Saywell and Mr van Bussel responded to Members questions of clarification around Chromium monitoring results, Bonny Glenn leachate, and Hunterville WWTP’s stormwater bypass system. There was further discussion around consenting timeframes.

Page 10

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

ENV 16-113 Moved McKellar/Kelly That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the presentation from Mayor Andy Watson; Ross McNeil (Chief Executive), Hamish Waugh (Infrastructure Group Manager), Joanna Saywell (Asset Manager – Utilities), and Andrew van Bussel (Operations Manager) from the Rangitikei District Council. CARRIED

UPDATE FROM PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL ON WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT VARIED CONSENT CONDITIONS Report No 16-83 Mayor Grant Smith, Ray Swadel (General Manager City Network), Robert van Bentum (Water and Waste Services Manager); and Phil Walker (Special Projects Manager) from Palmerston North City Council made a presentation to the Environment Committee on progress implementing the varied resource consent conditions for the Palmerston North City Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP). Mr Walker took Members through a power point presentation which provided an overview of the DRP discharge standard, the River Monitoring Plan and the Best Practicable Option (BPO) Review. Mr Walker then took members through a provisional timeline during 2016/17 for the BPO. Mayor Smith and Messers Walker, Swadel and van Bentum answered Members’ questions of clarification around the projected timeframes, consultation processes, financial strategies and community interest. Mayor Smith assured Members of the City Council’s commitment to the project. ENV 16-114 Moved Kelly/Guy That the Committee recommends that Council: : a. receives the presentation from Mayor Grant Smith, Ray Swadel, General Manager City Network; Robert van Bentum, Water and Waste Services Manager; and Phil Walker, Special Projects Manager from Palmerston North City Council. CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 12.00pm. The meeting reconvened at 12.45pm.

FRESHWATER AND SCIENCE PROGRESS REPORT Report No 16-85 The purpose of this item was to introduce Members of Council’s Environment Committee to the Freshwater and Science Progress report for the period 1 February to 31 March 2016. Dr Roygard (Freshwater & Science Manager) highlighted the information in the report on the allocation levels for the regional freshwater programme where flyers had been distributed to three rural districts of the region, and work around Horizons’ Lake monitoring programme. He advised the Manawatu Clean up Fund project was coming to an end and that over $43 million had been spent improving the state of the Manawatu River and catchment over the past four years. A leaflet was distributed which outlined what had been achieved. Mrs Hesselin (Acting Media and Communications Manager) introduced the latest Action Plan from the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord (MRLA) and commented on events held to celebrate its launch. Dr Roygard clarified Members’ questions

Page 11

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

around the finances of the MRLA, and explained that funding (including interest) allocated to projects that had not been able to be undertaken within the timeframe, would be returned to the Ministry for the Environment following discussions by the Governance Group at its next meeting. He updated Members on progress with the Lake Horowhenua Accord and Action Plan and the resource consent appeal. It was hoped a decision would be received in June/July 2016. In the Water Monitoring and Research section, Dr Roygard highlighted the work carried out on Radon concentration samplings in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments and referred to Heather Martindale’s presentation to the March Environment Committee meeting on her MSc research using Radon sampling. He also referred to the water restrictions currently applying in Ohakune and clarified Members’ questions around the water allocation framework and provisions in the One Plan around low flows, with further explanations from the Chief Executive and Dr Peet (Group Manager Strategy and Regulation). Dr Roygard said that Horizons now had a strong involvement in the National Lakes Research programme explained in paragraph 6.1.6, which was about determining how to monitor lakes effectively and how to prioritise and complete restoration works in lakes. There was full discussion on possible effects of new takes on existing groundwater wells, and possible impacts on neighbours. In response to questions, Dr Roygard fully explained the process around monitoring of bores across the region, the frequency of monitoring, either monthly or on a continuous basis. Some bores were artesian some of the time and not at other times and this related to rainfall and abstraction. He also mentioned that research programmes were put in place when a large pattern of decline was observed, such as Santoft. Mr Brown (Senior Scientist-Water Quality) gave his presentation on “LakeSPI (Lake Submerged Plant Indicators) and Macroinvertebrate monitoring results”. LakeSPI looked at the health of a lake through the type of macrophytes that were present, and he referred to the results for coastal lakes in the Horizons’ region presented in the NIWA report and noted in paragraphs 7.1.19 to 7.1.25. Mr Brown also referred to the Macroinvertebrates monitoring and explained positive and negative trends and the poor sites where the MCI (macroinvertebrates community index) was below 80. He clarified Members’ questions about MCI results. Dr Roygard said an update would be provided to the next Environment Committee meeting about the potential air breach at Taumarunui. He mentioned the $20,000 research funding that had been secured and was explained in paragraph 9.2.10. ENV 16-115 Moved Keedwell/McKellar That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-85 and Annex. CARRIED

BIOSECURITY AND HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRESS REPORT Report No 16-84 This report introduced Members to the Habitat Protection and Biosecurity progress reports for the period 1 February to 31 March 2016. Ms Irvine (DoC Partnerships Manager Acting – Palmerston North) introduced Jasmine Hessell, her counterpart in Whanganui, to Members. She took the report as read, but provided an update that the kiwi chick was released in March, and that while the rat numbers were higher than hoped, a mustelid monitor had a low return due to the work of the relevant councils on the buffer zone. In response to questions about control of the predicted rat population increase, Ms Irvine explained the increase was not expected in all areas and she commented on a recent announcement by the

Page 12

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Minister for increased funding for predator control. Ms Hessell updated Members on aerial pest control work which was on a three year cycle, and clarified the Kia Wharite area had been worked at the end of last year which hopefully had reduced the rat population significantly as well as other predators. Mr Kemper (Director for Conservation Partnerships in the lower North Island) clarified that the additional targeted funding announced by the Minister was for specific activities. There was further clarification on questions about Bushy Park, Blue duck population at Kia Wharite, progress with funding for the Totara Reserve playground, and the timing of the kite boarding event at Foxton Beach. Mr Martyn (Manager-Biosecurity & Habitat Protection) introduced the four regional coordinators who looked after different aspects of the biosecurity/biodiversity work: Aaron Madden, Shane Rix, Craig Davey and Eric Dodd. Mr Madden (Environmental Coordinator–Biodiversity) updated Members on progress with the biodiversity protection programme. He noted two amendments to table 1.1. The number of environmental grants supported in Period 4 should read ‘1’, not ‘21’, and the YTD total for environmental grants completed should be ‘7’, not ‘3’. He advised that with the increase in staffing levels, maintenance and audit issues were being addressed and through a new audit programme, each site would be checked every two years. He clarified that Kitchener Park received funding was achieved for Kitchener Park through the from He Tini Awa Trust, and said it was possible to carry over funding for an approved project as the financial year end was in the middle of the planting season. Mr Dodd (Environmental Programme Coordinator–Animals) advised the pest control work was on track to finish by the end of the financial year. He also provided an update on information received from OSPRI on its planned cessation of its programmes in the Region. A future report would be brought to the June Council meeting. The difficulty of controlling rook nest sites was mentioned. Mr Davey (Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator – Plants) updated Members on Velvetleaf contamination and the advice provided by Horizons’ staff to farmers. He provided maps showing updated areas of Velvetleaf in the Region since the report had been written. He explained about options for managing the spread of Velvetleaf which included the use of selective chemicals, and sterilisation. It was hoped that machine hygiene standards would be covered by national legislation to help prevent distribution of unwanted pest plants. Members then received an update on progress with spraying of Purple Loosestrife at Lake Horowhenua. Following the Chief Executive’s suggestion, a new recommendation (b) was included. ENV 16-116 Moved Kelly/McKellar That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-84 and Annex.

b. requests officers to bring back a report to a future Environment Committee regarding the role of government and regional council roles when border biosecurity incursions occur. CARRIED

Cr Burnell left the meeting at 2.50pm.

MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Cr Keedwell referred to the presentation from the Wildlife Trust and asked whether officers had spoken with Mr Girling. The Chief Executive commented that officers were happy to provide advice and support and an application for a Community Grant had been received from the Trust. Mr Girling had extended an invitation to all Councillors to visit and the CE said he would take that action forward.

Page 13

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

The Chair asked whether there were any comments on the Follow Ups. Dr Roygard (Freshwater and Science Manager) clarified Cr McKellar’s question about monitoring of private lakes with no public access. The Chair advised that the Kia Wharite visit would be scheduled for the summer 2017.

The meeting closed at 3.03pm.

Confirmed

______CHIEF EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

Page 14

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-130 Information Only - No Decision Required

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 6 Item

1. PURPOSE 1.1. The purpose of this item is to provide members of Council’s Environment Committee with an Environmental Education progress report for the period 1 May to 29 June 2016 and a brief summary for the financial year 2015-2016.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-130.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.

5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with recommendations in this paper.

6. ANNUAL PLAN TARGETS

Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % F/cast 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Enviroschools workshops held 2 5 1 3 5 16 24 66% 66% Waiora sessions conducted 3 13 2 21 4 43 31 138% 138% Community engagements 8 4 0 11 5 28 30 93% 93% 6.1. The measure for Enviroschools workshops held includes workshops run by the Regional Coordinator as well as workshops run by contracted Facilitators. See the end of this report for a summary of the year and reasons for not meeting the annual plan target. 6.2. The measure for Waiora sessions conducted includes only sessions run by the Educator. Sessions conducted using Horizons Regional Council’s kits without the Educator are not included. See the end of this report for a summary of the year. 6.3. The measure for community engagements does not include Waiora sessions or Enviroschools workshops. This measure tracks all other events and activities that fall within Environmental Education. See the end of this report for a summary of the year and reasons why the figures in this report look different from previous reports. 6.4. For further detail on all of the measures see the Environmental Education summary table.

Environmental Education Page 15

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7. ENVIROSCHOOLS DATA

Districts

Item 6 Item Ruahine Palmerston Ruapehu Whanganui Rangitikei Manawatu Tararua Horowhenua Kindergarten Total North City Association Enviroschools 4 9 5 10 6 3 1 3 41 Friends of 3 3 1 1 6 3 1 6 24 Enviroschools 7.1. There are 41 official Enviroschools spread throughout the Region covering all districts. 7.2. There are 24 Friends of Enviroschools in the Region.

8. ACTIVITY REPORT - WAIORA 8.1. The Educator conducted the following Waiora sessions: one session with Moawhango School on the Moawhango River; three sessions with Glen Oroua School on the Oroua River at Timona Park. 8.2. Two Waiora kits remain booked out with an after-school programme on the Mangatera Stream in Dannevirke and with a student from Cornerstone Christian School completing a science fair investigation on the health of the Manawatu River.

9. ACTIVITY REPORT - ENVIROSCHOOLS 9.1. Georgina Morrison has been contracted to facilitate in the Palmerston North City and Tararua District. 9.2. The regional facilitation team attended an all-day regional workshop that focused on facilitation skills. This workshop was run by an external and experienced Facilitator. 9.3. The contract with Palmerston North City Council funding the Enviroschools Programme has been finalised and is in the process of being signed. 9.4. The regional facilitation team met for a team meeting. 9.5. The Regional Coordinator had meetings with the following Friends of Enviroschools or potential Friends of Enviroschools: Shannon School and Pongaroa School. 9.6. New Friends of Enviroschools: Manakau School and Tokirima School. 9.7. The Regional Coordinator ran an Enviroschools unpacking workshop with Hokowhitu Kindergarten.

10. ACTIVITY REPORT - OTHER 10.1. Missed from the last reporting period were three sessions with Active Minds Aotearoa holiday programme. The Educator led two sessions and supported a third. 10.2. The Educator supported Rural Advisor Kate Synge in a presentation to students at Tararua College on nutrient management. The aim of the presentation was to discuss Horizons’ role with nutrient management, the effects nutrient leaching can have on the environment and steps Horizons takes to support farmers to meet nutrient management guidelines. 10.3. The Educator ran three classes at Glen Oroua School through River Journey in preparation for Waiora sessions. 10.4. The Educator attended a planting day at Kairanga School. Kairanga School received a community grant to restore and further replant their wetland area. This includes replacing existing boardwalk, creating new tracks and new plantings to further enhance the

Environmental Education Page 16

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

biodiversity. Bunnings, who also agreed to sponsor the project, were present on the day to help the children plant, as well as family, local community members and Cr Colleen Sheldon. Over time the school would like to open the access further and create an

educational space not just for the students but also the community. Item 6 Item 10.5. The Educator presented feedback to Regional Council on the Draft National Strategy for Environmental Education for Sustainability. There was good discussion at the meeting with resolution to provide further feedback to the steering group. 10.6. The Educator and the Communication Team met with Georgina Morrison from Palmerston North City Environmental Trust to discuss Horizons’ involvement in the upcoming EnviroFest. 10.7. The Educator met with Nina Mercer from Palmerston North City Council to discuss creating a joint publication for the Kura Kaitiaki: Water Conservation resource with specific Palmerston North City information. 10.8. Tokirima School has collected 195 dynex sleeves to be recycled. They are supporting the initiative run by the Natural Resources and Partnerships Group for rural schools to be reimbursed a set amount per complete dynex sleeve. These sleeves are then collected by Horizons staff and sent away for recycling.

11. END OF FINANCIAL YEAR SUMMARY 11.1. The 2015-2016 financial year saw the requests from schools and groups change to reflect more of an interest in the Waiora programme. These requests are difficult to predict in advance and the demand on the Educator’s time varies year to year. 11.2. Enviroschools workshops are primarily run by the contracted Facilitators for each district. Various elements outside of Facilitator control can impact a workshop and whether it goes ahead or not in any given term. Workshops did not go ahead due to the following reasons:  Two workshops due to a new Facilitator undertaking training.  One workshop due to the key speaker not being available.  One workshop due to budget constraints and a demand that term for all-staff workshops.  Two workshops due to a handover term with a new Facilitator.  One workshop due to a combined inter-district event where one workshop was run in lieu of two separate workshops. In previous years there have been requests for regional workshops (such as additional reflection process workshops or as part of a teacher training programme) or workshops run by the Regional Coordinator (such as to grow the number of Friends of Enviroschools in a district). Demand for these has been less this year. 11.3. Waiora has been a popular programme this year, in particular during Term 1 where the Region enjoyed beautiful, settled and ideal weather for river studies. More schools have used Waiora for school camp activities this year than in previous years. There have also been new schools engaging with the Waiora programme which may be because of good promotion. 11.4. This was the second year that Environmental Education reported on community engagements. To do so is an opportunity to measure what other activities schools and groups are requesting outside of Enviroschools workshops and Wairoa sessions. For 2015-2016 the Educator trialled counting the overall number rather than the individual sessions. This resulted in an inaccurate representation of engagements and appeared as if the Educator was not achieving the targets. Through counting each session (as happens

Environmental Education Page 17

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

with Waiora sessions) the Educator is able to provide a more accurate measure. This is the reason why the figures have changed from the previous reporting period.

Item 6 Item 12. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION SUMMARY Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date . A Keep New Zealand Beautiful event at ANZAC Park in Palmerston North planned and run as a multi-district event by the Palmerston North and Manawatu Facilitators in lieu of individual Term 3 district workshops. . A Term 3 Tararua workshop run by the Tararua Facilitator. . An inter-district early childhood education workshop planned and run by the Palmerston North and Manawatu Facilitators. . A regional all day reflections process workshop. Target . Term 4 Manawatu workshop run by the Manawatu Facilitator. 24 workshops held . Term 4 Palmerston North workshop run by the Palmerston North Facilitator. YTD . Term 4 Whanganui workshop run by the Whanganui Facilitator. Enviroschools 16 workshops held . Term 4 Rangitikei workshop run by the Rangitikei Facilitator. . Term 1 Palmerston North workshop run by the Palmerston NOTE: workshops run by North Facilitator. Regional Coordinator . Term 1 Tararua workshop run by the Tararua Facilitator. unless otherwise stated . Term 1 Whanganui workshop run by the Whanganui Facilitator. . Term 2 Manawatu workshop run by the Manawatu Facilitator. . Term 2 Whanganui workshop run by the Whanganui Facilitator. . Term 2 Rangitikei workshop run by the Rangitikei Facilitator. . An inter-district early childhood education workshop planned and run by the Palmerston North and Manawatu Facilitators. . Facilitation Skills workshop run by Chris Rowan for the regional facilitation team. .One session with Levin Intermediate at Gladstone Reserve. .One session with North Street School on the Makino Stream. .One session with Whangaehu School on the Whangaehu River. .Four sessions with Aokautere School on an unnamed stream that runs through the school grounds. .Four sessions with Ross Intermediate School at Ruamahunga Park. .Three further sessions with Ross Intermediate School at Waitoetoe Park. .Two sessions with Clifton School on the Rangitikei River. Target .One session with Ngapuke School on the Pungapunga River. 31 sessions conducted .One session with Westmount School at Kahuterawa Reserve.

Waiora .One session with West End Scouts at Camp Kilsby. YTD .Eight sessions with Lytton Street School at Sixtus Lodge. 43 sessions conducted .Four sessions with Milson School at Totara Reserve.

.One session with Westmount School at Raumai Reserve. .One session with Lytton Street School at Waitoetoe Park in celebration of the launch of the second Action Plan for the Manawatū River Leaders’ Accord. .Two sessions with Havelock North Primary School at Totara Reserve. .Two sessions with Bainesse School at Totara Reserve. .Two sessions with Taonui School at Totara Reserve. .One session with Moawhango School on the Moawhango River. .Three sessions with Glen Oroua School at Timona Park.

Environmental Education Page 18

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date .Shannon School in support of their native tree project. .Two interactive water conservation sessions with Fairfield School in support of Junior Neighbourhood. .Four interactive water conservation sessions with Taitoko School 6 Item in support of Junior Neighbourhood Support. .River Journey with Feilding Girl Guides. .Kimbolton School’s Green-Gold whole school reflection. Target .Sustainability session with Central Normal School. 30 Community .Bushy Park’s Education Day for Conservation Week. engagements .Challenge Day at Totara Reserve for Conservation Week. Community .Three Manawatū River Leaders’ accord events. engagements YTD .The Central Districts Field Days. 28 community .The Manawatu Walking Festival. engagements .Two interactive water conservation sessions with Taitoko School. .One event for Seaweek with Westmere School at Mowhanau Beach. .Three sessions with Active Minds Aotearoa holiday programme. .A nutrient management talk at Tararua College. .Three River Journeys with Glen Oroua School. .Wetland planting day at Kairanga School.

13. SIGNIFICANCE 13.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Helen Thomas ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATOR

Michael McCartney CHIEF EXECUTIVE

ANNEXES There are no attachments to this report.

Environmental Education Page 19

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-131 Information Only - No Decision Required

REGULATORY MANAGEMENT AND RURAL ADVICE ACTIVITY REPORT - MAY TO 7 Item JUNE 2016

1. PURPOSE 1.1. This report updates Members on regulatory activity for the period May to June 2016. It also includes information on Rural Advice activity as that relates to implementation of land use consents for intensive agriculture.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-131 and Annexes.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. As identified to the Audit and Risk Committee, there are significant costs being incurred by Council as a result of the appeals on several large consents, the volume of consenting work and a prosecution. These costs will be regularly updated to the Audit and Risk Committee.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.

5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with this item.

6. OVERVIEW 6.1. There is still a significantly high demand for consents and compliance resources. Of particular note is the progression of significant applications, including the Feilding and Foxton Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP’s), and the AFFCO Feilding processing plant. Horizons is also dealing with appeals relating to the Levin water supply and Lake Horowhenua consents. 6.2. During the reporting period progress has been made on a number of major applications. The Environment Court heard the appeals in relation to the Lake Horowhenua consents. A decision from the Court is expected in late September 2016. In relation to the Whanganui District Council (WDC) by-pass application, a decision was released on 7 June 2016. This decision provides a three year window by which WDC must commission upgrades to the WWTP to ensure the discharge complies with Resource Consent 101706. A pre-hearing on 15 June 2016 was held in relation to the Eketahuna and Paihatua WWTP applications. 6.3. Council is still processing other significant applications, including those associated with the Ruapehu District Council and the Department of Conservation WWTP’s. Processing these applications will involve a significant amount of staff time and resource (including external resources).

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 21

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.4. Industrial and territorial authority wastewater discharge consents are complex and generally have submitters and are increasingly subject to appeals. It generally takes at least 18 months from application to decision and longer where appeals or further

information is required. Item 7 Item 6.5. Most permit holders are required to submit new applications six months before the end of an existing permit. Given the processing time for a new application permits will always default to a period on existing use right (i.e. the conditions of the old permit continue to apply).

7. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

7.1. Catchment Trends

7.1.1. Figures presented separately in the One Plan Dashboard Report show that we continue to achieve a solid overall reduction in nitrogen leaching in Tararua and Horowhenua target catchments. Reductions through Restricted Discretionary consents in the Rangitikei and Coastal Lakes target catchments have also been substantial. This is a result of our effort to ensure that there is enough ‘tension in the system’.

One Plan Implementation Dashboard Image: Consented nitrogen reduction, excluding conversion.

7.1.2. Projected results from controlled activity consents have been much more variable. This reflects the fact that, while the same leaching targets apply across the region, soils and climatic conditions vary considerably. Thus, while very few farms in the Tararua have been able to meet Table 14-2 targets, many operations in the Coastal Rangitikei are comfortably under them, and some have considerable ‘headroom’ to intensify without breaching the table. As a result, there are both many more controlled activity consents in the Rangitikei than other areas, and a lower level of overall nitrogen reduction – because the base leaching is generally lower. We continue to pay close attention in this area, both through the consenting process, and through the policy evaluation that is currently underway. 7.1.3. Reductions in Coastal Lakes target catchments have been lower overall than elsewhere. This is primarily because these catchments are focused on the nutrient loss that directly affects the sensitive coastal lakes. The approach the Council has taken to consenting the farms located within these lake catchments has been different to other catchments. Farms that are located within the surface water influence zone for a lake are closely assessed to ensure all reasonable and practicable measures are being adopted to ensure a reduction in N leaching is being achieved. The farms that are located within the target catchment but outside of the surface water influence zone for a sensitive lake are instead consented on

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 22

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

the farm are required to ensure good practice is being adopted. This results in sometimes no reduction in nitrogen leaching on farm, and hence the overall catchment. To date we have rejected one application on the basis of excessive N leaching and inadequate

mitigation strategies being identified. Item 7 Item 7.1.4. The distribution of nitrogen leaching reductions (for all catchments) is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Existing farms base N leaching vs. target N leaching.

7.2. Conversions 7.2.1. Conversions to intensive land use are another area in which we continue to pay careful attention. At a policy level, the One Plan sets a strong expectation that conversions meet Table 14-2. Nonetheless, there is a restricted discretionary rule (Rule 14-4) that provides a pathway for consents to be granted for conversions that do not meet the table. Applications for conversions that do not meet the Table 14-2 targets are being received and processed, in doing so, we are mindful of the need for particular scrutiny of these applications to ensure that the right balance is being struck. The number in the graphic below for conversions in non-target catchments for controlled activity status should read 13 rather than 12.

One Plan Implementation Dashboard Image: Conversions.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 23

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7.2.2. The Monitoring Dashboard relates to conversions that have occurred since 2010 and shows that, while most consents issued for conversions have been restricted discretionary, most have also been outside target catchments. For the small number of restricted discretionary consents that have been issued within target catchments, the majority (6)

Item 7 Item were partial conversions. This means that a portion of land near an existing dairy farm has been added to the milking platform. The incremental impact of the ‘converted’ portion of the activity is relatively small. Therefore, some discretion has been applied as to whether an operation including a partial conversion is required to meet the nitrogen leaching maximums stated in Table 14.2. The remaining conversion was subject to extensive investigation into environmental effects, which were considered to be no more than minor. 7.2.3. Conversions to intensive farming within target catchments are also relatively modest in terms of land area. As Table 1 below shows, conversions have been most pronounced – in absolute terms, and as a proportion of the catchment – in the Manawatu below the Gorge.

Catchment Converted Proportion Catchment Area (ha) Area (ha) Converted (%) Target Catchments Mangatainoka 43216 258 0.60 Waikawa 7936 216.2 2.72 Southern Whanganui Lakes 19533 448.7 2.30

Upper Manawatu 130827 270.3 0.21

Coastal Rangitikei 65993 459.6 0.70

Non-Target Catchments

Northern Coastal Lakes 11910 230.6 1.94 Mowhanau 2901 397.3 13.70 Cherry Grove 169718 529.6 0.31 Tiraumea 94159 35.1 0.04 Oroua 90301 1122.2 1.24 Middle Manawatu 72362 167.5 0.23

Lower Manawatu 49005 911.2 1.86

Coastal Manawatu 56706 532.5 0.94

Middle Rangitikei 217588 52.8 0.02

Lower Rangitikei 58775 69.2 0.12

Lower Whangaehu 109627 135.9 0.12

Coastal Whangaehu 10096 29.1 0.29

Turakina 95723 162.7 0.17

Table 1: Area subject to conversion, by catchment.

7.3. Existing Use 7.3.1. Focusing on restricted discretionary consents issued for existing operations, the majority of farms are making reductions between 2 and 14 percent. Those farms not making a

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 24

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

reduction were already low leaching operations and were already taking reasonable steps

to mitigate N loss. The distribution by catchment is shown in Figure 2 below. Item 7 Item

Figure 2: Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the restricted discretionary rule stream by catchment.

7.3.2. Figure 3 below shows the percentage reduction in nitrogen leaching for controlled activities by catchment. The controlled activity rule requires farms to meet the targets specified in Table 14.2 of the One Plan. Therefore whilst most farms are making no reduction, and some are increasing, they are still complying with the nitrogen leaching limits specified in the One Plan.

Figure 3: Frequency of percentage reduction in existing farms within the controlled activity rule stream by catchment. A negative percentage is an increase in leaching.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 25

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7.4. Progress with Implementation 7.4.1. Consenting continues to progress steadily. The economic climate will be having some impact on the rate at which consent applications are being received. We are working with

industry to maintain momentum, while also being sensitive to the situation of individual Item 7 Item operators. 7.4.2. Following discussions with stakeholder groups earlier in the year, staff have worked to tighten up processes and documentation for nutrient management consents. The main purpose of these changes was to ensure that consents clearly address those matters of discretion identified in both the controlled and restricted discretionary rules, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and the Resource Management Act. This may sharpen our attention with regard to some individual applications; we do not anticipate that it will result in significant changes to overall results at a catchment scale. 7.4.3. An updated set of application templates has been produced to give effect to these adjustments, and was presented to dairy-sector consultants on 17 May 2016. This set of changes was based on a thorough review of consenting practices for both existing-use and conversion, and so we anticipate that the process will now remain settled for a time. 7.4.4. OVERSEER underwent a minor version change in late May 2016. The programme’s administrators advised us prior to the update that changes in estimates would be small; while we have not undertaken a direct comparison, nor have we so far noticed any significant changes in leaching estimates. 7.4.5. With around a third of intensive land-use consents now issued, we continue our efforts to transition the programme to a business-as-usual footing to ensure best use of resources. Over the next few months this will include closer attention to documentation and data management, as well as a focus on bringing the horticulture and arable sectors into the consenting system. 7.4.6. Tables 3 and 4 below provide an overview of progress with the consenting process. Table 3 summarises consenting progress in relation to existing intensive land use activities. To date 141 consents have been processed (previously 114 at the last reporting period), with an additional 21 in the process. In relation to those farms subject to the 1 January 2016 timeframe 35 files are either with consultants or have had their base files checked and are awaiting assignment to a consultant. Overall there are 33 farms that are not involved in the process. 7.4.7. With the exception of three farms that were identified as being under significant stress, letters have been sent to all farms in the Mangatainoka catchment who have yet to lodge resource consent applications. These farms are required to lodge consent applications with Horizons by 1 July to avoid a formal regulatory response. Similar letters will be sent to those farms in the other overdue catchments during July 2016.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 26

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Conversion Existing Use Catchment Total Restricted Restricted 7 Item Controlled Controlled Discretionary Discretionary

Target Catchments

Mangapapa 0 0 1 5 6

Mangatainoka 0 1 0 56 57

Waikawa 1 0 0 7 8

Lake Horowhenua 0 0 2 8 10

Lake Papaitonga 0 0 1 0 1

Other Coastal Lakes 0 2 1 9 12

Upper Manawatu 1 1 0 10 13

Coastal Rangitikei 4 2 25 16 47

Non-Target Catchments

Other West Coast 0 3 2

Whanganui 1 2 3

Other Manawatu 11 12 23

Other Rangitikei 1 2 3

Whangaehu 0 2 3

Turakina 0 1 1

Ohau 0 1 1

Total 19 29 30 111 189

Table 3: Intensive Land Use consents granted by catchment.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 27

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Files with

Consultants In Process Total (yet to be lodged) Date when Item 7 Item (including number Catchment and base files applications have consents to be checked waiting to be lodged* Granted on hold) granted

assignment to Outstanding Consultant

Mangapapa 6 0 1 0 7 1 January 2015

Waikawa 7 0 0 0 7 1 January 2015

Other southwest 1 0 0 0 1 1 January 2015 catchments (Papaitonga)

Subtotal 14 0 1 0 15

Mangatainoka 57 14 9 4 84 1 January 2016

Other Coastal Lakes 10 1 7 14 32 1 January 2016

Coastal Rangitikei 41 6 19 15 81 1 January 2016

Lake Horowhenua 10 0 0 0 10 1 January 2016

Subtotal 118 21 35 33 207

Upper Manawatu (above 9 0 29 123 161 1 January 2017 gorge and Hopelands)

Subtotal 9 0 29 123 161

TOTAL 141 21 64 156 383

Table 4: Summary of Regulatory Implementation of Nutrient Management for Existing Use.

7.4.8. During the reporting period the first two consents for horticulture have been granted. This follows a significant period of consultation with Horticulture New Zealand and the applicants, regarding the process and conditions of consent. Staff recently met with the Foundation for Arable Research (FAR) to discuss how the consenting process in relation to arable sector will be rolled out. The first step in the process is to identify the arable operators within the target catchments and then work with FAR on how we can start engaging with sector around the process.

8. OTHER RURAL ADVICE 8.1. Most of the Rural Advice team’s time has continued to be occupied with nutrient management. Several complex applications currently being processed: these, appropriately, are a significant focus for the team. As indicated previously, we are working to reduce our direct involvement in technical review of more routine applications. Over the past two months, we have also put considerable effort into improving record keeping - this remains a very manual process, however, which will require a data management solution in the longer term. 8.2. The Rural Advice team has contributed to national guidance on the use of OVERSEER in regulation, and contributed technical expertise to the evaluation of policy effectiveness currently underway within the Council. 8.3. While the team continues to respond to general enquiries from the farming sector, the volume of office-bound work (as indicated above) has meant that very little proactive engagement has been possible.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 28

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Request Type Number of Requests Effluent pond storage 8

Farm dairy effluent - general 6 Item 7 Item Irrigation 2 Dairy conversion information 2 Feed pads 2 Underpass 0 Nutrient management 18 Consent enquiries (post granting) 10

Table 4: Requests for Rural Advice (May-June 2016).

9. CONSENTS 9.1. Progress in relation to significant applications since the last report are summarised below: a. Feilding WWTP As previously noted staff, at the direction of the court, are continuing to work through and finalise conditions. It is expected this process will continue through to July 2016. b. NZ Energy Limited (NZEL) As noted in the previous Environment Committee, Ngati Rangi, who is one of the appellants on this matter, has appealed the Environment Court decision to the High Court. c. Department of Conservation (DOC) – Whakapapa WWTP DOC submitted a consolidated draft application in March 2016. Horizons have reviewed this draft and provided comments back to DOC. DOC are currently undertaking further work as a result of this feedback and formally lodges an on 16 June 2016. At present we believe public notification of the applications are highly likely. d. Horowhenua District Council (HDC) - Levin Water Supply As previously reported the decision on this matter has been appealed. In summary HDC have appealed the decision on the basis they believe the conditions imposed compromise the level of service it can provide to Levin in relation to potable water supply and the duration is too short. A hearing is scheduled to occur in early August 2016. Discussions between Horizons and HDC staff are on-going in an attempt to resolve the appeal. e. Horowhenua District Council – Hokio Stream Cut A decision was released in March 2016, which HDC has appealed to the Environment Court. Discussions between Horizons and HDC staff are on-going to identify how this matter can be resolved. It is important to note that any potential solution will have to involve the Hokio Beach community. f. Horowhenua District Council – Foxton WWTP Staff are currently reviewing additional information provided by HDC. Horizons and HDC section 87(f) reports were due by 15 June 2016. Once these reports are completed the applications will be referred to the Environment Court. g. Whanganui District Council (WDC) As noted above a decision in relation to this matter was released on 7 June 2016. In summary the decision has granted a consent for three years to allow WDC to continue discharging wastewater to the Coastal Marine Area whilst it undertakes upgrades of the WWTP to ensure it meets the compliance standards of consent 101706.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 29

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

h. Horizons Regional Council – Lake Horowhenua As noted above the appeal in relation to this matter was heard during the week of 23 May 2016. At present we are anticipating a decision from the Court in late September 2016. Item 7 Item i. AFFCO - Feilding No update since the previous report. At present we still anticipate this matter will go to a hearing. A date for the hearing has yet to be set. 9.2. The Regulatory Team has been providing pre-application support in relation to other significant applications that are due to be lodged within the next 12 months. These are summarised below: j. DOC Whakapapa During the reporting period staff have had various meetings with DOC staff and their consultants to discuss the applications which were formally lodged on 15 June 2016. 9.3. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the current consent status of WWTP’s in the region. This relates to both Non-Territorial Authority and Territorial Authority WWTP’s, refer Annex A. 9.4. As detailed below there are a number of WWTP that are operating under the existing use provisions of the RMA. It is important to note that under the existing use provisions of the RMA, a consent holder is still required to comply with the conditions of the subject resource consent and in the event non-compliance occurs must take active steps to resolve the non- compliance. Accordingly, Horizons continues to monitor compliance against the conditions until such time as the new consents are granted. 9.5. All WWTP that are currently operating on the existing use provisions of the RMA are, as part of the consent renewal process, proposing upgrades which will result in improved environmental outcomes. 9.6. There are a total of 46 WWTP in the region. Twenty nine (29) WWTP have current consents, whilst 16 are operating under the existing use provisions of the RMA (Figure 4). One WWTP does not have existing use rights. 9.7. The one WWTP that does not have existing use rights is the Hato Paora College site. When this consent expired there was a period of uncertainty as to whether the school would continue to operate. It has now been confirmed the school will continue to operate (albeit at lower pupil numbers than indicated in the renewal application). Staff are now working with the college to get the discharge re-consented. The scale of the discharge is small, and the environmental effects associated with it are considered minor. 9.8. Over the last three years we have processed and granted eight WWTP (including the WDC discharge to the coastal marine area) resource consents and are at the tail end of resolving the Feilding WWTP and have resolved the PNCC consent review. Recently, several more applications have proceeded to either the direct referral (Foxton WWTP) and pre-hearing stage (Pahiatua and Eketahuna WWTP) of the consent process. Whilst these consents have been ‘moved along’ we have also processed a number of significant other applications such as the NZE and Lake Horowhenua applications. Scrutiny continues to be applied to the legacy of consents with long existing use periods.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 30

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 7 Item

Figure 4: Non-Territorial Authority and Territorial Authority current consent status.

9.9. The majority of the existing use consents (13) relate to Territorial Authority WWTP. It is important to note that in addition to resolving those WWTP currently operating under the existing use provisions, an additional 10 WWTP consents expire prior to 2020. Accordingly, the high demand on resource within the Regulatory Team will continue for the foreseeable future and Horizons will, along with the Territorial Authorities, have to continue to work together to ensure the current and expected renewals are processed effectively and efficiently with the resources available.

10. APPEALS 10.1. The table below outlines the consents currently under appeal:

Applicant Status New Zealand Energy Limited Hydro-electric Scheme - Raetihi Environment Court decision has been appealed to Consents 101987/1, 101990/1, 101991/1, the High Court. 101992/2, 101993/1, 102264/1, 104088, 104089, 104090, 104091, 106031, 106032 and 106033. Manawatu District Council Feilding Wastewater Treatment Plant. Interim decision has been issued. Ten year term Consents 106945 – 106951 and 107070 – upheld. Conditions being formulated. 107072. Horowhenua District Council Levin water supply. Hearing scheduled for early August.

No date for hearing set down. Hokio Stream Cut. Horizons Regional Council Lake Horowhenua Restoration Works. Waiting for Decision from Environment Court.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 31

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

11. CONSENT MONITORING

11.1. Territorial Authorities

The following is an update on what has been happening, and a look at the larger consents: Item 7 Item a. Rangitikei District Council (RDC) As noted in previous reports, concerns have been identified with the Marton, Taihape and Hunterville WWTP. In relation to Hunterville and Taihape, the primary issue relates to the inability of the WWTP to comply with the discharge volumes in the resource consent. As a result of on-going discussions with RDC, HRC has required that either new applications or variations seeking to rectify this issue are lodged by 1 December 2016 and 1 March 2017 for the Hunterville and Taihape WWTP, respectively. RDC has commenced further investigation into determining how much of the chromium detected in the Marton WWTP discharge into the Tutaenui Stream is in the trivalent or hexavalent form. b. Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) As previously reported the PNCC resource consent for the Totara Road WWTP was varied in November 2015. Under the varied consent the first matters PNCC have to address are: i. Submit a River Monitoring Plan (RMP) to Horizons within 12 months of the final decision on the new conditions (Condition 19); and ii. Commencing preliminary investigations no later than May 2017 and provide Horizons with a Statement of Intent on the specific actions over the following 12 months to achieve the milestone targets (Best Practicable Options (BPO) review - Condition 23 B,C,D). PNCC have advised they will be commencing both these streams of work later on in this calendar year, so it is in a position to meet both of the above requirements. This will include an ecologist developing the RMP and project set-up and initial tasks identified for the BPO review. Regarding Condition 7, which relates to the Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP) concentrations of the WWTP discharge, PNCC are complying with the new DRP standard.

12. WATER USE PROGRAMME 12.1. In relation to the 10 to 20 l/sec water takes, we are now following up with 30 consent holders to confirm whether they have verified their flow meters. If verification has not occurred Horizons will issue Abatement Notices requiring verification to occur within a specified timeframe. 12.2. The reporting period has also focused on reviewing compliance reports submitted by major consent holders such as Genesis Energy, King Country Energy and some of the district councils.

13. WASTEWATER PROGRAMME 13.1. This section of the report has been amended to detail the current compliance status of the various WWTP in the region. Annex B summarises this information. 13.2. Of the 46 WWTP in the region, there are 11 that are significantly non-complying and four that are non-complying with the conditions of their consents.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 32

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

13.3. The 11 non-compliances relate to continued failure to comply with environmental requirements of the resource consent, such as discharge volumes and quality and failure to install flow meters. Of the 11 significant non-compliances eight are currently at different stages of the consent process, which will result in new resource consents with tighter

environmental controls. In light of this it is considered the most appropriate mechanism to 7 Item deal with these non-compliances is through this process, rather than undertaking further enforcement action. The three remaining significant non-compliances (Marton, NZDF Waiouru and Koitiata WWTP) and are being managed by the consent holder and monitored by Horizons. Further regulatory action remains a possibility for these plants. 13.4. The four non-compliances are technical in nature (i.e. failure to provide required information, failure to undertake full sampling etc.) with the consent holder rectifying issues within specified timeframes. Horizons will continue to monitor these sites to ensure timeframes are adhered to. If timeframes are not met then Horizons will consider what enforcement action it may take.

14. DAIRY AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME 14.1. The farm dairy effluent monitoring for the financial year was completed during the reporting period. During the financial year a total of 658 sheds were inspected out of a total of 888. Numbers of sheds inspected is down primarily due to staff vacancies occurring during the monitoring year. Of the 658 inspections undertaken, 437 were routine, whilst 221 were snap shot. Overall the compliance rate for the season was 98%. 14.2. Nutrient Management implementation in target catchment areas continues as a priority. In this respect monitoring on farm will focus on encouraging the implementation of farm mitigation options accepted by the farmer for his individual farm. A key part of monitoring these consents will continue to be the conversations on farm at the time of the annual inspection, discussing the practical aspects of the consent holder’s agreed commitments. 14.3. Annual nutrient reports for these farms are currently being reviewed. These reports focus on nutrient input and output across the farm for the previous season. 14.4. During 2016 monitoring season there are a total of 127 farms that hold an Intensive Land Use Consent (both Conversion and Existing) that were scheduled to be inspected along side their discharge consent. Staff have visited approximately 67 of these farms in conjunction with their annual discharge consent inspection. For the existing Land Use Consents, conversations on farm were focused on how they are implementing their agreed mitigations as identified in their resource consent. For the conversion consents, the conversations revolved around ability to meet the nitrogen leaching level for the previous season. 14.5. In addition to inspecting these farms Horizons will also be assessing how the farmer is tracking against their N leaching trajectory identified in their resource consent. Given an entire season needs to elapse before we can track how a farmer is performing, we are not expecting to be able to complete assessing consented N numbers and the effectiveness of agreed mitigations until December 2016.

15. COMPLIANCE AND NON-COMPLIANCE 15.1. There were 111 compliance monitoring interactions during the reporting period. Of these one (1) non-compliance was detected, and seven (7) significant non-compliances. This equates to approximately 93% compliance rate across the programme. 15.2. Below is a breakdown of the non-compliances by consent area for the reporting period: Industry: One (1) non-compliance and six (6) significant non-compliance. Rural: One (1) non-compliances and no significant non-compliances

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 33

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16. ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENTS 16.1. Over the reporting period a total of 55 complaints were received. The majority of these complaints (33) related to discharges to air. The remainder of the complaints related to

discharges to land (13) and water (20). Item 7 Item

17. SIGNIFICANCE 17.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Greg Bevin Tom Bowen REGULATORY MANAGER MANAGER RURAL ADVICE

Nic Peet GROUP MANAGER STRATEGY & REGULATION

ANNEXES A Current Consent Status for WWTP's in the Region. B Current Compliance Status for WWTP's in the Region.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 34

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Current Consent Status for Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Region

Rangitikei District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Taihape 105518 3-Jun-14 1-Jul-27 N/A Currently non-complying with volume limits specified in Horizons have required that draft applications seeking 7 Item consent. RDC have advised the current limits cannot be to either re-consent or vary current consent is due by complied with despite proposed I and I work 1 March 2017 Marton 7312 30-Apr-98 31-Mar-19 N/A Consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Hunterville 105833 7-Mar-14 1-Jul-37 N/A Currently non-complying with volume limits specified in Horizons have required that draft applications seeking consent. RDC have advised the current limits cannot be to either re-consent or vary current consent is due by complied with despite proposed I and I work 1 December 2016 Bulls 6406 29-Oct-96 1-Nov-06 Yes Revised application lodged in 2015. Further information Decision on notification. was requested. Currently reviewing further information. Ratana 7400 26-Aug-98 31-Jul-18 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Mangaweka 101726 13-Apr-14 19-Mar-24 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Koitiata 105079, 106028 12-Dec-11 1-Jul-24 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Horowhenua District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Shannon 106892 20-Mar-15 20-Mar-48 N/A New consents recently granted by Environment Court. N/A Discharge to land now operating

Waitarere 102220 18-July-02 27-Jun-07 Yes Comment of revised proposal has been made. Revised Focus has been on progressing Shannon and Foxton AnnexA applications now being prepared seeking a longer term, WWTP. Working with applicant to identify timeframe with additional land is now being prepared. Applicant is by which revised application will be lodged. discussing revised application with submitters. Levin WWTP 107154 27-Nov-14 1-July-34 N/A Currently Consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Levin Pot 6610 27-Jul-98 31-Dec-18 N/A Currently Consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Foxton 103925 3-Dec-09 1-Dec-14 Yes Applicant has requested direct referral to the Matter to be referred to Environment Court Environment Court. This is expected to be filed in the near future. Tokomaru 101227 15-Feb-02 24-Jan-17 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Foxton Beach 102249 1-Apr-03 11-Mar-28 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Palmerston North Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Palmerston North 101829 16-May-03 16-May-2028 N/A Variation to consent now processed. PNCC is now Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring working towards timeframes in amended consent. This includes having to lodge a new consent by 2022.

Whanganui District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Mary Bank 6735 18 Oct- 96 27 Sep-21 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Mowhanau 100749 15-Jan-07 1-Dec-21 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 35

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Whanganui District Council 101706 19-Feb-02 30-Jun-26 N/A Consented – Operating under consent below. Currently operating under short term consent to allow for construction of the new WWTP Whanganui District Council APP-2015200171.00 7-Jun-16 7-Jun-2019 N/A Consent granted for a 3 years to allow for discharge via Construction to commence Item 7 Item the ocean outfall for construction of new WWTP.

Manawatu District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Feilding 101840 28-Feb-05 1-Jun-09 Yes Interim decision from Environment Court released. Draft Expecting final Decision from Environment Court. conditions being formulated and reviewed Himatangi Beach 105938 31-Jan-12 1-Jul-25 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Halcombe 101252 19-Jul-01 28-Jun-16 Yes Application received 24 March 2016. Reviewing application. Cheltenham 103260 7-Aug-06 17 Jul- 16 N/A Application received 15 April 2016. Reviewing application Sanson 101839 9-Jul-02 18 Jun-17 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Rongotea 102242, 102245 2-Dec-02 11 Nov- 17 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Kimbolton 103418 14-May-09 1 Sep-2019 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Awahuri 103710 17-Aug-06 27 July 2026 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Ruapehu District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Taumaranui 913243 5-Feb-93 26 Nov-12 Yes Decision issued, objection received in relation to Processing objection has, with applicant’s agreement, conditions. been placed on hold while applications for National

AnnexA Park, Raetihi and Ohakune were being prepared for lodgement. Staff to contact RuaDC to resolve objection. National Park 103403,106166 29-Feb-12 17 Nov-15 Yes Application received. Additional information requested Application on hold waiting for additional information. under Section 92. Rangataua 4926 5-Feb-96 20 Dec- 05 Yes Revised application received in August 2014. On hold Staff to contact RuaDC to discuss how and when under s92 and seeking affected party approval. Focus has application can be progressed. been progressing Raetihi, National Park, and Ohakune WWTP. Pipiriki 106225 18-Apr-13 1-Jul-35 Yes Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Raetihi 102379 17-Nov-05 17-Nov- 15 Yes Application received. Applicant requested application be Further research to be carried out regarding water placed on hold while further works are carried out quality in the catchment. regarding water quality within the catchment. Ohakune 101699, 101701, 101702 17-Nov-05 17-Nov-15 Yes Application received. Additional information requested Application on hold waiting for additional information. Ruatiti 7126 10-Jun-97 19 May 2027 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Tararua District Council Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Pahiatua 4369 21-Sep-95 30 Jun- 05 Yes Application was notified. Submissions received. Pre-hearing meeting to be held mid June 2016. Eketahuna 103346 30-Jan-13 1-Jul-15 Yes Application was notified. Submissions received. Pre-hearing meeting to be held mid June 2016. Woodville 104310, 101429 9-May-08 17-Apr-10 Yes Applicant preparing replacement application Revised application to be lodged in August 2016.

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 36

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Norsewood APP-2014016620.00 17-Jun-16 17-Jun-18 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Pongaroa 102885 20-May-09 30-Apr-19 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Ormondville 104163, 104164 10-Aug-09 1-Jul-26 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Item 7 Item Dannevirke 100979 24-Jan-03 9-Dec-27 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Non TA Consent Commence Expire Date Existing Use Rights Current Status Next Step in the process

Whakapapa 105684 1-Feb-12 1-Dec-14 Yes Revised application lodged in mid June 2016 Assess application, request further information and then notify. NZDF Ohakea 105171 12-Apr-12 1-Jul-15 Yes Further information received is being assessed. Decision on notification. NZDF Waiouru 102825, 105987 5-Jun-12 1 -Jul- 29 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring Hato Paora College 100228 15-Sep-1998 25-Aug-2008 No Working with College to get an application lodged. WPI 103909 1-Jul-2010 1-Jul-25 N/A Currently consented Application due 6 months prior to consent expiring

Wanganui Prison 3767 31-Aug-95 31-Aug-13 Yes Reviewing revised application. Decision on notification.

AnnexA

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 37

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 7 Item

AnnexB

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 38

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 7 Item

AnnexB

Regulatory Management and Rural Advice Activity Report - May to June 2016 Page 39

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-132 Information Only - No Decision Required

FRESHWATER & SCIENCE PROGRESS REPORT 8 Item

1. PURPOSE . The purpose of this item is to introduce Members of Council’s Environment Committee, the Freshwater and Science Progress report for the period 1 April to 31 May 2016.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-132 and Annexes.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT . There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT . The Freshwater and Science programme at Horizons is reported on publicly to the Environment Committee regularly throughout the year and also communicated via various forums and methods.

5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT . There is no immediate financial impact associated with this report.

6. SUMMARY OF THE APRIL TO MAY 2016 REPORT . The April to May period of the year has been a busy one for the Science and Freshwater programme. The attached reports provide updates on the various parts of the programme. In summary: . The regional Freshwater programme has entered into the key period for riparian planting work. The long dry autumn has delayed some planting work, putting pressure on the team to complete the allocated work in June. At the time of reporting 27 of 61 projects had been completed, establishing 10.5 km of stream fencing and 4,565 plants. The programme has allocated to complete 17.685 km of fencing and 18,425 plants by the end of June. . The Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund project has been closed with the final Governance Group meeting being held in May 2016. A summary of the project has been produced in flyer form and is provided as part of the report. . The Lake Horowhenua Clean-Up Fund project has progressed via the Environment Court proceedings that were held in late May 2016. The court process ran over four days and further work following that has been undertaken to enable suggested conditions to be put forward to the court and for the parties to comment on these. A decision on the Lake Horowhenua Restoration consents is expected in the next two to three months. A further piece of work as a part of the Clean-Up Fund is the work with the horticultural growers. A summary report has been prepared and provided

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 41

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

as a part of this item. Overall this shows a considerable amount of implementation of the recommendations from the drainage and erosion control plans that have been prepared.

. The Groundwater Monitoring and Research provides updates on several monitoring Item 8 Item investigations during the reporting period and further work that has been completed on a range of the research projects that are scheduled to be completed by the end of June. . The Surface Water Allocation programme has continued to manage water use restrictions well into the month of May. At the time of reporting rainfall has occurred and there are no longer any low flow restrictions within the region. . The Water Quality Research and Monitoring section of this item reports on the results from the swimming spot monitoring over the 2015-16 bathing season and also reports on results of work completed in collaboration with DairyNZ around quantifying the contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus loss from farms that are not identified by the Overseer model. . The Environmental Research and Monitoring section overviews air quality information from the Taihape and Taumarunui Airsheds, including an update on the work following the exceedances of the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality in Taumarunui in March. . The Land Research and Monitoring section provides updates on the fluvial monitoring programme where cross section survey work for the year has now been completed and project work is focussing on information gathering for the analysis of aggradation levels in the lower Oroua and Manawatu Rivers. . The Biodiversity Research and Monitoring section includes an update on the development of protocols for measuring state and trends of wetlands.

7. SIGNIFICANCE . This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

ANNEXES A Freshwater & Science progress report B Integrated Storm Water Management Plan for the Arawhata sub-catchment

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 42

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

Freshwater Management

1 Waterway Enhancement & Protection

1.1 Targets – Regional Freshwater Programme

The Waterway Enhancement and Protection section reports on water quality implementation work across the region, excluding the work undertaken as part of the Manawatu and Lake Horowhenua Clean-Up Funds, which is reported separately in the next sections of the Environment Committee report.

Brief updates for the current reporting period are provided in the sections below. A summary of the progress

made against the targets for the year is provided in Table 1 and in the summary table at the end of this section.

Table 1: Annual Plan performance measures for the 2015-16 year for the Regional Freshwater Programme (excluding the Freshwater Clean-Up Fund work for the Manawatu and Horowhenua Catchments).

Reporting Period YTD AnnexA Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Work with individuals, community groups and 34 47 20 39 12 152 25 608% iwi to improve waterways *1 Environmental Grant applications supported *1 11 20 8 11 11 61 20 305% *1 AP/LTP targets

1.2 Activity Report

Work with individuals, community groups and iwi to improve waterways:

Context

The work with individuals or groups includes providing specific advice regarding freshwater projects and generally addresses the best methods to improve water quality or aquatic habitat. These include stock exclusion, planting, weed control, sediment control and fish passage improvement advice. Each individual or group is only counted once per year, although many projects involve numerous contacts and/or visits as they progress. This excludes work undertaken in the Manawatu and Lake Horowhenua catchments, which is reported separately.

Work to inform where to target works to be most effective continues in close collaboration with the Science team. This includes working with the Science team to assist with water quality investigation studies, including monitoring work in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 43

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Update

1.2.1 During this period, 12 new contacts were made with individuals, iwi, community groups and clubs.

This is in addition to providing ongoing advice to others previously counted. Item 8 Item 1.2.2 Staff have continued to work with Ngati Rangi supporting fencing and planting projects in the Tokiahuru Catchment (Whangaehu). Fencing works are close to completion for this financial year.

1.2.3 Staff have continued to work with iwi/hapu groups within the Rangitikei Catchment to scope up and assist with potential new projects within the Moawhango, Pourewa, Hautapu and Makowhai (Coastal Rangitikei) catchments. Over this period a wananga was held in the Hautapu catchment with Ngati Tamakopiri to learn more about the river and identify potential restoration projects. Staff are working with Ngati Apa on a project to plant riparian margins of the Makowhai Stream, near Tangimoana, with pre-plant spot spraying completed and planting of 1,200 native trees and shrubs scheduled for June. Spot spraying for a 6,000 native plant riparian project with Ngati Hauiti on the Pourewa Stream at Rata is expected to occur in early June, with the planting timed for late July.

1.2.4 Work with Nga Rauru on three projects in coastal streams to the west of Whanganui is being scoped and costed, ready for works to begin next financial year.

1.2.5 The Freshwater and Land teams met with staff from Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui and are

working on a variety of projects in partnership with them.

1.2.6 Staff have worked with Fish & Game to cost up and submit a proposal to the Whanganui River Enhancement Trust (WRET) to fence off the last of the Manganui-o-te-Ao River from cattle. This is to help protect the water quality within this significant fishery site, and an area which is also important habitat for whio/blue duck. The application was successful and will complete 4.85 km of fencing, with the work expected to commence in early 2016-17 and be completed in December

AnnexA 2018. The work is being co-funded by Horizons, Fish & Game and WRET. Horizons contribution is consistent with grant criteria.

1.2.7 Staff contributed to the Rangitikei Treasured Natural Environment Group’s newsletter with two articles regarding the upcoming planting season and planting trees for bees.

1.2.8 This year’s inanga spawning site surveys focused on the Whanganui, Turakina, Waiwiri and Waikawa rivers with the aim of determining the extent of inanga spawning zones. The extent of sites on the Whanganui River was found to be very large, with nearly 13 km of the river supporting inanga spawning.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 44

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Photo 1: Newly fenced area of the Mowhanau Stream prior to planting, May 2016.

Environmental Grant applications supported:

Context

Environmental Grants support a wide range of works that primarily include fencing and planting of waterways, fish pass remediation and willow and weed control, such as releasing of native trees and shrubs planted last winter.

Update

1.2.9 During April and May 2016, 11 new Freshwater Grant applications were lodged, with a few other planting projects being scoped up to be lodged in early June.

1.2.10 So far this year 27 claims have been finalised, totalling more than 10.5 km of stream fencing, and 4,565 native trees have been planted (Table 1). As is traditional, a large number of jobs are expected to be claimed in the last month of the year, and this year the long dry autumn has

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 45

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

exacerbated this issue. Most riparian planting is generally undertaken from late May-June (in coastal areas) to August-September (Central Plateau/upper Rangitikei).

1.2.11 Staff are into the busy winter planting season, with existing jobs either underway or completed,

and finalising some newer jobs in terms of plant numbers and species mixes. Item 8 Item

Table 2: Summary of completed and proposed work in focus catchments for the regional freshwater programme for 2015-16 (excluding the Manawatu and Horowhenua Accord/Freshwater Clean-Up Fund work). *TMOTW – Te Mana o Te Wai fund. Year to date Year to Total no. date no. Focus Proposed length of Proposed Other work completed/ of of catchment fencing fencing planting comments projects natives completed planted Awarua 1 0 0 25 25

Met with the Bulls community Coastal 4 0 0 2,200 0 group in March and planned Rangitikei planting in the Makowhai. Wananga held with Ngati Hautapu 2 80 0 25 0 Tamakopiri. Kaitoke 3 0 0 1200 1000

Manganui 3 1,050 m 1050 700 - o te Ao A school planting day planned Mowhanau 7 1,780 m 1070 825 0 for mid June (Kai Iwi).

Ohau 3 50 50 125 0

Porewa 5 2,585 m 1560 7,370 330

Waikawa 2 - - 830 -

One project scoped for next Waiwiri 0 - - - - financial year. Regional Freshwater AnnexA Grants 5,125 3,210 (outside 31 12,140 m 6,830 m plants plants focus catchment s) TOTAL 18,425 4,565 61 17,685 m 10,560 m 2015-16 plants plants

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 46

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Map 1: Locations of the Regional Freshwater Grants 2015-16.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 47

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Nga Whenua Rahui Work:

Context

As discussed in the Freshwater Operational Plan, a Freshwater staff member (Joe Martin) undertakes work Item 8 Item on contract to Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR), assessing proposals for protection of bush remnants, wetlands and stream sites on Maori owned land.

Update

1.2.12 Two new bush blocks, Omerei and Awaroa, were approved for kawenata at the March Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR) meeting. Fencing of these blocks is likely to start in late spring.

1.2.13 Joe has completed the plant pest control work for the season.

1.2.14 One new proposal for a large bush block near the Whanganui River was visited and the work regarding the proposal continues.

1.3 Waterway Enhancement and Protection Summary

Key programme Project Progress to date

deliverables

 152 individuals, community groups or iwi have been Work with individuals, visited or contacted and provided with advice this community groups or Work with 25 individuals, year to date. iwi to improve community groups or iwi waterways  Partnership projects with iwi, district councils and other groups within Horizons’ eegion are continuing.

AnnexA  Sixty-one Freshwater Grant applications have been accepted so far this year, with others in the planning Environmental Grant 20 Environmental Grants phase. Twenty-seven claims were made totalling applications supported supported 10.5 km of fencing and 4,565 native trees/shrubs planted. Works completed in accordance with the contract to NWR, including  Plant pest control work was finished. Nga Whenua Rahui assessing proposals for (NWR) protection of bush  One new potential kawenata application is being remnants, wetlands and scoped. stream sites on Maori . owned land.

Clare Ridler FRESHWATER COORDINATOR

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 48

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Manawatu River Accord and Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund

2.1 Targets – Manawatu Accord 8 Item

Brief updates for the April-May reporting period are provided in the sections below. The targets for the 2015- 16 financial year are summarised in Table 1 below. Note the fencing and planting totals for each period are cumulative.

Table 3: Annual Plan performance measures for the 2015-16 year for Manawatu River Accord. Reporting Period Allocated Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th work Stream fencing, including 6.68 0 10.2 km 13.929 km 22.3 km 57.8 km 45 km 128% riparian planting. km 22 sites 16 sites (10,192 32 sites (11,127 43 sites Improve native fish habitat 13 0 (8,947 plants, plants, 5 fish (34,485 10 sites 430% and fish passage. sites plants) 4 fish passes) plants) passes) Community involvement 0 0 0 3 3 10 4 projects 250% projects.

2.2 Activity Report

Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord and Action Plan: AnnexA Context

The Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum draws together iwi/ hapū, local and central government, industry, farming, environmental and recreational groups with a common goal of improving the state of the Manawatu River and Catchment.

In August 2010, the Manawatu River Leader’s Forum signed the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord with the goal of improving the Manawatu River, the Mauri (lifeforce) of the Manawatu Catchment, such that it sustains fish species, and is suitable for contact recreation, in balance with the social, cultural and economic activities of the catchment community.

In June 2011, the Manawatu River Leaders established a collaboratively owned action plan for implementation. The action plan outlined more than 130 actions to be undertaken.

The action plan is overseen by the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum with meetings generally held twice yearly. Progress on the Forum Action Plan was reported on in April 2014 via a public report that was accompanied by an independent science report on the state and trends of water quality in the Manawatu. A further report on progress was presented in November 2014, where the Leaders’ Forum initiated a refresh of the Action Plan. A Science and Mauturangi Maori Advisory panel met and produced a report to inform the process in early 2015. This report was presented to the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum in June 2015.

The revision of the Action Plan was undertaken by the Forum over the latter part of 2015 and the Forum considered and adopted the revised action plan at its December 2015 meeting.

Update

2.2.1 On March 11 2016 the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, attended the launch of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum new Action Plan. The new action plan outlines 104 actions the signatories to the Accord will undertake over the next five years (2016 to 2021). The Action Plan

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 49

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

provides information on the Manawatu Catchment, its water quality and an overview of the progress to date. The actions included in the plan specify a lead agency, the partners to the task,

timeframes and how they will be measured. Item 8 Item

Image 1: Left, cover of the 2014 independent science report; Centre, cover of the 2015 Science and Mataurangi Maori Report: Right, cover of 2016-2021 Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord Action Plan.

2.2.2 Accord members are already working towards the goals and actions committed to in the new Action Plan.

On 13 April Federated Farmers hosted a Riparian Management workshop which was attended by Accord partners and others working in the riparian management space. Attendees included members representing DairyNZ, Open Country, Fonterra, NZ Deer Association, iwi, Horizons Landcare Trust and Federated Farmers representatives. Dr Lucy Mckergow from NIWA also spoke to present the science behind riparian management, which gave confidence in the actions

being undertaken. AnnexA

2.2.3 The next Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum meeting is likely to be held in November 2016.

Photo 2: Tokomaru School and Ross Intermediate students planting on a farm near Tokomaru in May.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 50

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2.2.4 Work achieved as a part of the original action plan, including the Clean-Up Fund project discussed below, included:

. More than 120,000 plants planted alongside waterways;

. More than 380 km of stream fencing; 8 Item . 98 Environmental Farm Plans completed to help farmers reduce the environmental footprint of farming; . 202 farms mapped under the Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) with environmental works carried out to protect 3,282 ha of land in the catchment since 2006; . 15 fixes to barriers restricting fish migration; . Upgrades to six wastewater treatment plants; . 23 community-led projects completed with six more underway; . Series of 14 signs being erected throughout the catchment to communicate cultural history; . One of New Zealand’s largest inanga (whitebait) spawning sites discovered and enhanced at Whirokino near Foxton; . Water quality sampling at more than 70 river and stream sites across the Manawatu Catchment as part of Horizons Regional Council’s primary water quality monitoring network. An independent science report of the state and trends of water quality in 2014 and production

of a Science and Mataurangi Maori Science Panel report in 2015 to report on state and tends of the catchment and to inform the revision of the Action plan.

Manawatu River Accord Targeted Rate

Context: AnnexA

Horizons Regional Council has a targeted rate for the Manawatu Accord work. During the 2012-14 years this funding was incorporated into the Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund work (see below).

In the 2015-16 financial year, the targeted rate funding is being used to run a programme in addition to the Manawatu Clean-Up Fund work (as was also done in the 2014-15 year). This work is overviewed below.

The implementation work includes more stream fencing, riparian planting, fish habitat enhancement including fish barrier remediation work, and the community projects. The community projects approved in 2014-15 included: . Ossie Latham – Mangaone West Landcare Group; . NZ Landcare Trust – Stoney Creek Catchment Project; . Mike Hoggard & Alison Short – Hayne’s Creek Project; . Te Roopu Taiao o Ngati Whakatere – Manawatu riparian planting near Poutu Pa; . Roslyn Reach (Marise Clark) – Little Kawau Stream rehabilitation project; . Tanenuiarangi Manawatu Inc – Tuna revitalisation; . Te Kāuru – Phase 3 Parahaki Island Project; . Te Kāuru – Phase 2 Kaitoke Walkway Establishment; . Dennis Emery (Oroua Catchment Care Group) – Colyton Stream, Guy property riparian project; and . Dennis Emery (Oroua Catchment Care Group) – Colyton Stream, continuation of riparian work at AFFCO.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 51

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Update

2.2.5 All the community grant projects listed above are on track to be completed at the end of June 2016. Three of the community projects have been fully completed with the remaining seven organising the final planting projects. All but one project will be completed within budget. The Item 8 Item Haynes Creek Project will be severely underspent. The project leaders have identified this is due to lack of interest for riparian planting generated in that area due to the dairy pay out and concern about flooding along Haynes Creek which was experienced in June 2015.

2.2.6 The Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Inc tuna repatriation project will be completed in June with longfin and short fin eels being released into the Pohangina and Manawatū Rivers.

2.2.7 A total of 127 freshwater projects in the Manawatu Catchment have been confirmed and 53 have been completed so far. The completed projects include 32 fencing projects installing 22.3 km metres of stream fencing, 20 planting projects with 11,127 plants planted, and five fish barriers remedied. The target for riparian planting jobs (10 sites this year) has already been exceeded with 32 sites completed so far this year (Map 2).

2.2.8 The Manawatu Accord targeted rate has been allocated towards a total of 57.8 km of fencing and 32,485 riparian plants. There is a large amount of work to complete in June in order to complete the allocated projects.

2.2.9 Applications closed for the 2016-17 Manawatu Accord Community Grant Funds on 13t May with six applications received. The successful projects were to be considered in early June and applicants notified on 10 June 2016.

2.2.10 Work has continued with Manawatu iwi/hapu to progress an application to the Ministry for the Environment for funding of further work in the catchment to improve water quality and to

AnnexA communicate cultural information about the river.

2.2.11 The focus currently and over the next reporting period will be to follow up on all outstanding fencing and planting projects and complete claims before the end of the financial year. Some planting projects will be completed next financial year.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 52

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Photo 3: Fencing on a dairy runoff in the Tararua District near Dannevirke.

Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund:

Context

The Manawatū River Fresh start for Freshwater Clean-up Fund project has been completed. The final project reports have been submitted to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) with a clear audit and the final Governance Group meeting was held on 16 May 2016.

Of the $5.2 million of original funding from MfE savings of $27,981.91 were made across the Horizons- led projects, mostly in the community engagement and environmental farm plan projects. A further $79,342.95 of savings was unspent in the Tararua District Council wastewater treatment plant upgrade project. Interest totalling $167,936.90 on the funding was earned over the life of the project. The interest and savings were allocated to additional projects and a total of $5,267,438.37 was spent over the life of the project.

The Governance Group resolved in May that the Clean-up Fund project was to be finalised with no reallocation of savings. The remaining funds will be paid back to MfE and Dairy NZ on receipt of an invoice.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 53

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project summary

2.2.12 The Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund has been a core part of the efforts of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum to deliver on the goals of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord. The projects within the work programme were carefully selected to target tipping points and key issues in the Item 8 Item catchment, while also providing for increased community participation in the work to improve water quality in the catchment. The Clean-Up Fund project was ambitious and while it originally aimed for completion of the MfE co-funded milestones in two years, this has been expanded to four years as some of the projects evolved and additional investment was made into the projects. The programme has enabled more work to be completed than would otherwise have occurred and has provided an umbrella to coordinate and report on the efforts across multiple agencies and community groups. The outputs of the project (Map 2) reflect part of the success of the project and include: . Upgrades to six sewage treatment plants, including three in the Tararua District (Dannevirke, Pahiatua, Woodville), two in the Manawatu District (Kimbolton and Feilding) and one in the Horowhenua District (Shannon) . More than 208 km of stream fencing, 66,402 native riparian plants and 12 fish pass solutions have been established in the catchment. . 98 environmental farm plans were completed, covering more than 16,000 hectares. The farm plans included nearly all dairy farms (83 out of 88) in the Mangatainoka sub-catchment (in Pahiatua/Eketahuna area) and included all 10 dairy farms in the neighbouring Tiraumea sub-

catchment and all 5 dairy farms in the Pohangina sub-catchment on the western side of the

ranges. . 19 community projects were completed, including a film festival project that reported more than 6,000 contacts. Other projects established signage in the catchment, completed stream fencing and planting initiatives, enhanced swimming spot areas and completed hikoi or video

viewings to raise awareness. AnnexA

2.2.13 A flyer overviewing the project has been prepared during the reporting period and is provided at the end of this section of the report.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 54

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Map 2: Work completed and proposed within the Manawatu Catchment over the 2015-16 financial year (July 2015 to June 2016).

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 55

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 56

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Manawatu River Accord implementation work: Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables  Following a report back to the community in April 2014 on the water quality of the catchment and the 8 Item efforts to improve it, the focus of the Forum has been the ongoing implementation of the Action Plan, the Clean-Up Fund project, and the refresh of the Action Plan.  A Science and Mauturangi Maori Advisory Panel met in 2015 and produced a joint statement report to Manawatu River Meetings completed, inform the Action Plan revision process. The findings Leaders’ Forum Action Plan implemented have been presented to the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum.  11 March 2016 the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord Action Plan was launched.  Numerous public events occurred prior to and following the launch encouraging the community to be more engaged with the river and raising the profile of the commitment of the Accord and the new actions.  In 2014-15 and 2015-16 the Manawatu Accord targeted rate work was in addition to the Clean-Up

Fund work.

 In the 2015-16 year implementation work has achieved 22.3 km of fencing, 11,127 native plants and five fish passes. Work to complement the Manawatu Accord  Annual targets for riparian planting have been met. goals of the Manawatu implementation work Accord Allocation for stream fencing projects now stands at 57 km compared to a target of 45 km. Three of the community grant projects approved in 2014 have AnnexA been completed with 7 continuing.  Six applications to the Manawatu Accord Community Grant Fund have been received and will be reviewed early June.  The Clean-up Fund has been completed and the final Governance Group meeting held on 16 May Manawatu Clean-Up Work programme 2016. Fund project completed  Final payments will be made to MfE and Dairy NZ from savings made through the project.

Lucy Ferguson FRESHWATER COORDINATOR

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 57

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 58

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 59

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Lake Horowhenua Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-Up Fund

Item 8 Item 3.1 Activity Report

The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Freshwater Clean-Up Fund:

Context

The Lake Horowhenua Accord was signed on 4 August 2013. The Accord development was led by Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and draws together five partners: the Lake Horowhenua Trustees, who represent the beneficial owners of the lake; the Lake Domain Board; HDC; the Department of Conservation (DOC) and HRC.

The Freshwater Clean-Up Fund project for Lake Horowhenua was announced by Minister Amy Adams on 25 February 2014. The total project cost is $1,270,500 with the Government’s Freshwater Clean-Up Fund contributing $540,000. The balance of the funding is from local government (HRC, HDC) and in-kind support from industry (Tararua Growers Association and DairyNZ). Horizons has subsequently allocated further funding to the project to enable the resource consent process and implementation of theproject.

The eight projects selected for funding from the Clean-Up Fund project aim to improve the suitability of the lake for recreational use, reduce the inputs of sediment and nutrients into the lake and improve native fish populations within the lake. These eight projects represent an opportunity to make considerable gains in water quality and lake health in a short time: 1 Purchase and operation of lake weed harvesting equipment;

2 Provision of a boat wash facility in Levin township; AnnexA 3 Riparian fencing and planting; 4 Installing stormwater treatment systems; 5 Installing a sediment trap/treatment wetland on the Arawhata Stream inflow to the lake; 6 Creating integrated drainage and sediment control plans for up to 500 ha of cropping farms; 7 Preparing sustainable milk production plans for dairy farms in the catchment; and 8 Fish pass and habitat improvement for native fish.

Update – Progress over the reporting period

Consents

3.1.1 The Lake Horowhenua Restoration consents were granted on December 15, 2015. These consents are for activities to restore the health of Lake Horowhenua through weed harvesting (reducing the effects of ammonia toxicity and toxic algal blooms), installing a sediment trap (reducing sediment and nutrient input into the lake), and establishing a fish pass at the weir (improving access to the lake for native fish).

3.1.2 One appeal was lodged by the ‘Hokio Trusts’ prior to the appeal period closing on the 20 January. The appeal process has progressed over the following months including:

. The process for Section 274 parties (other parties) to join the appeal being completed. The parties join the appeal in support of the appeal – Hokio Environmental and Kaitiaki Alliance (Heka) Inc, the Muaupoko Cooperative Society Ltd and Anne-Marie Hunt. Three parties joined the appeal to support the decisions – the Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Part Reservation Trust, the Muaupoko Tribal Authority (MTA) and Jonathan Procter.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 60

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3.1.3 The Environmental Court hearing was held over four days starting the 23rd May where all parties were heard. The applicant (HRC) is to work on the conditions of the consents and is to make these available for the parties to comment on in early June. Horizons (as the applicant) will then be able to provide comment on these conditions and the comments by the various parties. Following receipt of the final documents the court will make its decision. The timing of this is uncertain but likely to be within the next two to three months. 8 Item

Fencing and Planting

3.1.4 No fencing or planting projects were completed during the reporting period, however two planting projects and a community planting day is planned to be held over the next few months.

Integrated stormwater management project

3.1.5 Dan Bloomer (LandWISE) has prepared a further report (see Annex B) detailing the work undertaken on the cropping land by the vegetable growers which had been recommended in the Drainage and Erosion Management Plans. This work has ranged from lowering and re-grassing headlands, changing row direction, removing raised traffic lanes and even retiring land permanently from cultivation due to soil rill erosion risk.

3.1.6 Lowering of the headlands enables free drainage rather than ponding and breaking out taking soil into the drainage network. The practice of grassing of these headlands has been accepted by the growers and being undertaken as the crop rotation allow, however there are some confounding issues on some properties. The upgrade of the community drainage network is the key to the success of these works; currently failures at certain points along the drainage network causes flooding of large volumes at erosive velocities onto cropped land.

3.1.7 Upgrading of the drainage network has begun with protection work completed along the left bank of the Arawhata Stream to protect farm land from flooding and two culverts on Bruce Road have been replaced with larger culverts with another culvert replacement on CD Farm Road planned AnnexA over the next month. The upgrading of the drains themselves will start in the new financial year.

Photo 4: Lowered and reshaped headland.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 61

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

Photo 5: Grassed headland to trap fine sediment

AnnexA

Photo 6: Erosion of cropped land due to storm water runoff from Lindsay Road Levin.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 62

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Photo 7: The same area on Lindsay Road in photo 3 permanently grassed and out of production.

Te Mana o Te Wai Fund project

Context

A key focus for the Lake Horowhenua Accord group in 2015 was the development of a Te Mana o Te Wai fund application for Lake Horowhenua. This application aimed to complete work to complement the restoration work already underway and to focus on matters of key interest to the Lake Trust and the beneficial owners. Projects included in the application included seeking funding for a detailed study of the sediment in the lake and options and costs to remove it. Other components of the application included a detailed catchment-wide fish population assessment, stormwater upgrades, riparian fencing, and planting and education programmes.

Funding for the project was announced on 12 November 2015 by the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, and Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox. The Government will be providing $980,000 from the Te Mana o te Wai fund to help improve the water quality of Lake Horowhenua. This funding is part of a $1.2 million project that includes efforts to increase community and iwi involvement in lake restoration (including providing a website), further water quality interventions, such as stormwater treatment upgrades, and provision of additional biosecurity protections for the lake. A further component of the work is investigation of the sediment in the lake and options to remove it in a cost-effective and ecologically sound manner. A further research oriented piece of work will investigate the fish populations in the catchment and provide recommendations on how best to restore these populations. Horizons Regional Council and Horowhenua District Council will make up the balance of the project with support from the Lake Domain Board and the Department of Conservation. The project also includes establishment of a plant nursery at the lake. The Lake Trust is the recipient of the funding and Horizons and Horowhenua District Council have been requested to have a representative on the Governance Group for this project.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 63

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Update

3.1.8 Staff and Councillor Sheldon have continued to assist with the project with work focusing primarily on finalising the project plan and establishing the Governance Group Terms of Reference. Work has also been advanced on the contractual arrangements between Horizons and the Trust to Item 8 Item confirm the co-funding arrangements. This work is ongoing at present. Two Governance Group meetings were held in May and a further meeting is planned in June.

Lake Accord

Summary of work

3.1.9 A summary of work carried out during the 2015-16 financial year as part of the Lake Horowhenua Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-Up Fund projects is provided in the table below.

Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables  A range of meetings held.  An application for further lake restoration funding has Regular meetings and been successful with the funding from the Te Mana o Te Lake Horowhenua progress on the Lake Wai Fund announced in November 2015. Work is now Accord Accord projects underway around the project plans, including the details of how Horizons’ co-funding will be managed in accordance with the approvals provided by Councillors in June 2015.  Lake weed harvester purchased. Trailer to transport the harvester built. Harvester now in the Region.  Application submitted to Maritime Safety for certification

of the harvester. AnnexA  Boat ramp design work completed. Lake Horowhenua  A weed harvesting strategy report completed in June Lake weed harvesting Clean-Up Fund 2015.  Resource consent for the weed harvesting was granted in December 2015. An appeal was received in January 2015.  Environment Court hearing was held during the week of the 23rd May. Decisions from the court are likely to be announced over the next 2 – 3 months.  A boat wash facility was installed and officially opened on Boat wash facility 18 July 2014.  Two community planting days held  Fencing of 1,383 km of waterways and planting of Riparian fencing and 5,855 plants completed. planting  A community planting day held on 2 August 2015.  One fish pass installed in the Patiki Stream.  Drainage and sediment control plans developed for 368 ha of the 406 ha of cropped land identified in the Arawhata Catchment.  Implementation work underway.  Focus of the project has widened from the Arawhata sub- Integrated stormwater catchment to all sub-catchments of Lake Horowhenua.

management plan  A second progress report has been compiled by Dan Bloomer (LandWISE) outlining the main findings, measures the growers have already done to reduce soil loss, prioritisation of work to be undertaken and the next steps to the project.  A further progress report on the implementation of recommended works has shown the work growers have

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 64

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Key programme Project Progress to date deliverables been undertaking to help reduce the loss of soil from cropped land due to drainage issues.

 Culvert replacement is underway and flood protection Item 8 Item work along the Arawhata has been completed with further drainage upgrades planned for the new financial year. This work will complement the work done on farm.  Geophysical survey and an archaeological report for the sediment trap project completed.  Horizons’ application for an Archaeological Authority for this activity granted by HeritageNZ.  Land for the sediment trap purchased  Resource consent for the construction granted in December 2015. A single appeal on the consents has been received. Sediment trap  Technical work on the construction and efficacy of the sediment trap completed as part of the consent application indicates the trap alone will remove 30 percent of the annual phosphorus load from the streams into the lake and 25% of the annual sediment input from all of the streams.  Environment Court hearing was held during the week of 23rd May 2016 and decisions are likely to be announced in 2 -3 months time.  All 10 dairy farmers have had plans developed for their Sustainable Milk Plans properties and have been visited to discuss implementation of the plans.

 Resource consent was granted by the hearing panel in AnnexA December 2015 and there has been one appeal. Fish pass at Hokio

Weir  Environment Court hearing for the appeals was held the week of 23rd May 2016 and decisions likely to be announced in the next 2 -3 months.

Anna Regtien FRESHWATER MANAGEMENT OFFICER

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 65

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 66

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8 Item

Science

4 Water Monitoring & Research

4.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress (% progress)

YTD Reporting Period Target MEASURE ACTUAL 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Track changes in the health of the Region’s water 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100%

resource *1

Inform policy and non-regulatory programme 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% development *1 Assess policy and implementation effectiveness *1 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100%

*1 AP/LTP targets AnnexA The water monitoring and research activity summary is arranged in four sections to summarise work on groundwater, surface water quantity (allocation), surface water quality and biomonitoring. A summary of targets for the 2015-16 reporting year has been provided in a table at the end of each section. A more detailed introduction to the monitoring and research programmes for this year is provided in the accompanying activity reports, along with brief updates for the reporting period (1 April 2016 to 31 May 2016).

4.2 Activity Report (groundwater)

Groundwater monitoring programme:

Groundwater monitoring is carried out across the Region for State of Environment (SoE) monitoring purposes and to contribute to national monitoring programmes including the National Pesticides Survey, National Groundwater Monitoring and National Groundwater Age Programmes.

4.2.1 Groundwater level monitoring throughout the Region has progressed as scheduled, with monthly surveys completed in April and May. With irrigation season coming to an end, groundwater levels across the Region are beginning to recover, particularly with the increase in rainfall. Many shallow bores will be seeing the effects of autumn recharge and bore owners have reported pressure increasing in artesian wells.

4.2.2 Quarterly groundwater quality monitoring has progressed as scheduled during the reporting year and was last completed in March 2016. The next sampling run is scheduled for June 2016.

4.2.3 Earlier in 2016, Horizons secured $24,500 of external funding through the GNS Science co- funding initiative. The first project will utilise our age tracer data from the Groundwater State of Environment monitoring programme and additional age samples from our 2013 Low Flow sampling programme. These samples were analysed during 2015 and this project will provide the

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 67

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

analysis and interpretation of the results to further our understanding of groundwater availability and groundwater and surface water interaction across the Region. The second project will provide a similar analysis and interpretation of data obtained through the hydrochemical and age tracer sampling that was carried out in the Ohau and Waikawa Catchments during the reporting period

(Section 1.2.16). Item 8 Item

Artesian Ground Water

4.2.4 In response to a councillor question at the last Environment Committee meeting the following section discusses the impacts of abstraction and climate on artesian groundwater including providing information on the Torunui Swinbank Partnership consent and groundwater levels in the Whakorongo area.

4.2.5 There are a number of areas in the Region where flowing artesian groundwater conditions are present. This is where the pressure in the aquifer forces the water level in the well above the top of the casing of the well and water can be abstracted without pumping. Artesian conditions occur in some parts of the Region, particularly the Whakarongo, Opiki and Bunnythorpe areas of the Manawatu Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ). While artesian conditions occur and some water users may have had long-term historic access to water via artesian flow, in most cases throughout the Region the artesian pressure is negligible which means that wells are susceptible to loss of pressure due to both changes in climatic conditions (lower rainfall recharge) and increasing abstraction. This can lead to water users having to install pumps or seek alternative means of water supply, particularly during summer irrigation season and even more so in periods of reduced rainfall recharge which many well owners may be experiencing given the overall drop in pressure we have seen in many of the monitored wells across the Region during the past three years.

4.2.6 Horizons One Plan addresses effects of water takes on existing bores through Policy-16-5

AnnexA whereby consent conditions can be imposed on new takes where it is necessary to avoid significant drawdown impacts on existing bores that are ‘properly-constructed, efficient and fully functioning’ which is defined as a bore that ‘penetrates the aquifer from which water is being drawn at a depth sufficient to enable water to be drawn all year, the pump and bore are adequately maintained, the bore is of sufficient diameter and is screened to reasonably minimise drawdown, and the bore has a pump capable of drawing water from its base to the land surface’. Where an affected bore does not meet this test then Horizons can only specify short-term restrictions to allow sufficient time for the affected well to be modified or upgraded.

4.2.7 In 2004, a water permit to abstract up to 8283 m3/day from Well 354065 was granted to Torunui Swinbank Partnership for the purposes of pasture irrigation in the Opiki area of the Manawatu GMZ. The consent application raised public interest at the time due to the potential effects on neighbouring wells in the Opiki area that relied on artesian pressure rather than submersible pumps to abstract groundwater. The consent was initially granted by Horizons, inclusive of a number of monitoring conditions, and subsequently appealed. The Environment Court upheld the decision and according to Horizons records, the water permit has been active since 2004 and expires in August 2019.

4.2.8 Initially, during the first four seasons the water take for Well 354065 was staggered, with increasing volume over a period of four irrigation seasons, allowing the abstraction of 2070 m3/day for the first two irrigation seasons (defined as the period from October to April) following the commencement of the water permit; 4140 m3/day for the third irrigation season; and 8283 m3/day for all subsequent irrigation seasons for the remainder of the term of this Water Permit. The water take has now been operating fully since 2012 and daily flow records are received by Horizons via telemetry.

4.2.9 Monitoring of groundwater levels is carried out by Horizons through State of the Environment monitoring, as part of a monthly survey. Two monitoring bores are located within 3 km of bore 354065 however, one is significantly deeper (153 m deep) and is unlikely to be affected by the Torunui Swinbank water take. The other bore is Well 354011, located to the south west at a

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 68

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

distance of approximately 2.7 km, and is a similar depth to the water take at 33.5 m. Monitoring data from this well shows that there was a marked drop in pressure (the equivalent of approximately 400 mm in head) in the monitored well around 2005 however, since then groundwater levels have largely remained stable and there is no indication of increasing amplitude in seasonal high and low pressure measurements (Figure 1.2.1). It is not possible to state with certainty the cause of the drop in pressure without a more in-depth investigation. 8 Item

4.2.10 The cumulative effects of multiple bores pumping can mask the natural seasonal variability in water levels in our monitoring network, and this can lead to difficulties in distinguishing between the effects of abstraction and the effects of climatic effects on water levels. In recent years, we have applied the Eigenmodelling approach to isolate the effects of abstraction by modelling long- term water level records with climate data and show which wells are being affected by abstraction. This is a useful tool, but requires existing water level records and the ability to track changes before abstraction occurs.

2000 1800

1600 1400 1200 1000 800

600 400

Groundwater(mm) 200 0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Year AnnexA

Figure 1.2.1 Groundwater levels in Well 354011, located in the Opiki area. This monitoring bore is a similar depth to the Torunui Swinbank water take and measures long-term trends in groundwater levels.

4.2.11 To establish the cause of any decline, further and more intensive investigation is required to separate pumping effects from climatic effects. In areas such as Whakarongo there is an extensive record of groundwater levels and continuous groundwater level data available to review the suitability of our current groundwater allocation framework. We have recently carried out reviews of water availability in the Lake Horowhenua and Santoft areas.

4.2.12 A key consideration of groundwater level decline is the potential effects on surface water flows. To this end, the Manawatu catchment, particularly the Whakarongo area has been identified as a high priority due to the nature of the hydrogeology and the proximity to the Manawatu River. We anticipate reviewing this area during the coming financial year to help us ascertain the cumulative effects of groundwater abstraction in the area and determine the availability of groundwater and surface water for future use. At present, it would be difficult to pin point any impacts on existing users or the Manawatu River to a new groundwater take, given the short-term record available, however, through the analysis we can consider the effects of recent water takes in the context of overall cumulative use and changes in use over time.

Hydrogeology and Envirolink:

The overall management of the groundwater system relies on a good fundamental knowledge of groundwater recharge, discharge and movement through the subsurface environment. While there is a general understanding of the geology and hydrogeology on a regional scale, further development and refinement of conceptual and hydrogeological models for groundwater management zones are required to maintain a cohesive approach to groundwater management in the Region.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 69

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.2.13 Contracts are in place for two hydrogeological projects for 2015-16. The first will provide Horizons with a review of the existing conceptual hydrogeology of the Ohau and Waikawa Catchments. A final report from Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd is due in June 2016.

4.2.14 The second project follows on from the Rangitikei-Turakina conceptual hydrogeology and water Item 8 Item balance work that was completed during 2013-15, with the development of a groundwater transient flow model. Development of the model will aim to provide a representation of recent trends in groundwater levels and predict the potential pattern of groundwater levels, assuming different abstraction scenarios to estimate a sustainable allocation limit. Water use (flow) data from consented water takes located in the Rangitikei and Turakina are currently being incorporated into the model. This work is due to be completed by 30 June 2016.

Massey University Collaborative Research Programme:

A collaborative research programme by Massey University and Horizons Regional Council investigates the transport and fate of nutrients from farms to the waterways in the Tararua and Rangitikei Catchments. The work is carried out through a range of PhD and MSc projects and at present we have three students contributing to different facets of this programme.

4.2.15 Two PhD studies investigating the fate and transport of nutrients from farms in Tararua District are now in their third (and final) year. The field components of both the PhD studies are now complete and both are well into the report writing stage.

4.2.16 Our collaborative research programme with Massey University continues to develop, with an additional BSc Honours project now underway. Student Genevieve Smith is investigating nutrient flow pathways, including natural and artificial surface waterways and groundwater pathways, from a dairy farm in the coastal sand country of the Santoft area. A number of piezometers have been installed to enable testing of shallow groundwater quality and the study is progressing to schedule

AnnexA with final reporting anticipated later in 2016.

Resource Accounting:

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) recently identified land use intensification, particularly in the Rangitikei, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua areas, as a key opportunity for economic growth in Horizons’ Region (MPI, 2015). While supporting this growth, Horizons must also ensure the Region meets environmental targets set by regional and national policy, such as the 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

To achieve this, a significant investment has been made by Council to fast-track our knowledge and understanding of the Region’s groundwater resources. Focus areas include the Rangitikei and Turakina groundwater management zones, where increasing demand for water has led to Horizons increasing both our monitoring coverage and targeted research programmes to better inform policy implementation in these areas. The Horowhenua and Tararua management zones are the focus of investigations of nutrient transport and attenuation to identify opportunities for reducing nitrogen loadings in these catchments.

4.2.17 An extensive investigation of groundwater and surface water interaction in the Ohau and Waikawa Catchments is progressing to schedule. This study will help us establish the availability of groundwater and surface water resources and, in conjunction with our bio-monitoring and estuary monitoring, inform the investigation of land use effects on water quality in these catchments. Both surface water systems form part of the larger Horowhenua management zone, where there is significant interaction between surface water and groundwater.

4.2.18 An interpretation of the Ohau and Waikawa flow, chemistry, age and isotope data is now being carried out by GNS Science. A report is expected by 30 June 2016. Water chemistry results from groundwater bores sampled suggest that groundwater conditions are generally oxidised and concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen are elevated in some bores, particularly in the Waikawa catchment. Groundwater quality results from this study are now being delivered to bore owners in the area, and staff will be available to discuss the results, on request.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 70

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.2.19 Groundwater quality monitoring was completed in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments during April 2016 to help characterise groundwater conditions. Water quality results show the groundwater to be oxidised, with no significant reducing (i.e. oxygen-poor) groundwater conditions identified. Groundwater samples were collected for a range of parameters, including nutrients. Nitrate- nitrogen concentrations are shown in Figure 1.2.2 (below). Nitrate-nitrogen is elevated in many of

the wells, 8 Item

AnnexA

Figure 1.2.2 Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the Ohau and Waikawa catchments, measured in groundwater bores during April 2016.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 71

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.2.20 Surface water quality and bio-monitoring will continue for the remainder of 2016 to improve our understanding of seasonal changes in surface water quality. The Ohau Waikawa investigation seeks to inform long-term natural resource use for both water quantity and water quality, particularly the implementation of nutrient management rules set by Horizons Regional Policy and Plan (One Plan) in the Waikawa catchment, and guide decision making around land use Item 8 Item conversion in the Ohau catchment.

Policy Implementation:

Horizon’s One Plan Policy 5.6 provides for the general management of groundwater quality; however, further clarification and guidance is required to ensure a consistent and reasonable approach is taken to interpret and implement the aims of this policy. The development of a technical note will define a methodology by which the existing groundwater quality should be defined and describe the measures against which groundwater quality should be judged and the settings where different standards may be appropriate

4.2.21 The existing groundwater monitoring programme aims to provide information of the state of groundwater quality and covers the main area of the Region where groundwater is a key resource. At present, there are no numeric limits set in Policy 5.6 for the maintenance of groundwater quality which allows for reasonable interpretation of the aims of the Policy, depending on the hydrogeological conditions and receiving environment. For example, where groundwater is used for potable drinking water, the drinking water standards would be applicable, but where groundwater is a key component in maintaining surface water flows, then water quality targets or thresholds for maintaining ecological health in surface water may be relevant (allowing for attenuation or dilution effects). This project seeks to provide technical guidance for the appropriate interpretation of Policy 5.6 (Pattle Delamore Partners, personal communication 2015).

4.2.22 An initial project proposal from PDP Ltd has been reviewed by Horizons staff and this work is now

AnnexA underway. The technical note will describe a methodology by which the existing groundwater quality should be defined, either via existing groundwater quality data, using Horizons monitoring network to indicate likely trends, or describing situations where groundwater quality issues might be identified (outside of the Horizons monitoring programme). The technical note will also describe the water quality targets or thresholds that may apply, such as for human health for drinking water supply or for maintaining ecological health in surface waters, and outline the settings where different targets or thresholds may be appropriate. The technical guidance document is due 30 June 2016 and will be launched later in 2016.

Communication and Reporting:

Ensuring groundwater information is effectively communicated to Council, key stakeholders and the wider community is a key focus for this programme. Horizons’ regularly contributes to the development of national monitoring and reporting of groundwater science.

4.2.23 A series of environmental monitoring standards has now been adopted on authority from the Regional Chief Executive Officers (RCEO) and the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). Horizons is presently working closely with groundwater staff from a number of Regional Councils to develop a National Environmental Monitoring Standard (NEMS) for groundwater quality data, which will form part of a larger NEMS for Discrete Water Quality and Testing. The development of NEMS encourages the adoption of standards across New Zealand to ensure that all data collected by different organisations is collected, processed and quality coded appropriately and consistently.

4.2.24 Staff attended Regional Council Special Interest Group (SIG) meetings during May. The Groundwater Forum is making good progress on the development of the groundwater quality module for Land and Water Aotearoa (LAWA) which is due for release in December, and is currently undertaking a review of the national research priorities for groundwater science monitoring and research. A workshop, chaired by Abby Matthews (Horizons) and Tim Davie (Environment Canterbury) and co-hosted with MfE, was held to explore the integration of science

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 72

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

and policy to address the requirements of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPS-FM) for resource accounting and limit setting.

4.2.25 Horizons’ regional age tracer analysis (as described in Section 1.2.10) was presented by Uwe Morgenstern (GNS Science) to delegates of the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2016, held in Vienna, Austria in April 2016. This presentation highlighted the emerging use of age 8 Item tracers in improving our understanding of New Zealand’s groundwater systems and reaction rates (e.g. denitrification), essential for conceptualising the regional groundwater - surface water system and informing the development of land use and groundwater flow and transport models.

Abby Matthews SENIOR SCIENTIST – GROUNDWATER

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 73

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5 Water Allocation

5.1 Activity Report (water allocation) Item 8 Item Water allocation monitoring programmes:

Horizons undertakes a wide range of core environmental monitoring programmes that include the measurement of river level, flow, rainfall, soil moisture and gauging rivers during low flows.

5.1.1 Fieldwork for this core area of environmental monitoring continues.

5.1.2 One of the outputs of this programme is the potential ability to model river flow for any reach of a river based on the known flow at monitored sites. Flow data is essential to a number of critical areas of resource accounting including the sustainable allocation of water (particularly at low flows) and converting observed in-stream nutrient concentrations into catchment loads. The continued development and refinement of modelled (or synthetic) flows provides an extra dimension to being able to manage resources at any particular point in a catchment without the expense of in-field gauging at that point.

5.1.3 Over the period, the Catchment Data team has progressed work on methods to estimate synthesise flow data in the Region’s catchments. Work to date has focussed on the Manawatu,

Rangitikei, and Whanganui (and sub-catchments thereof) to build and refine models that supplement real flow data in places where there is no monitoring at present and flow information for those sites is needed.

Water metering programme and water quantity accounting:

AnnexA Water metering is a fundamental component of managing water allocation. The data is crucial for assessing the actual volumes of water taken compared to consented volumes. The WaterMatters website is used to deliver information back to consent holders and the public, and for compliance purposes

Water use restrictions

5.1.4 Over the summer of 2015-2016, the majority of flow restrictions kicked in late January, stayed in place over February and March, and had eased off again by April. Some restrictions returned in early May as discussed at the previous Environment Committee meeting. With the break in the spell of benign weather, there were no restrictions in place at the time of reporting (end of May). The figures and tables below draw from Horizons’ WaterMatters Website.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 74

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Figure 1: Low flow restriction summary published on Horizons WaterMatters website as at 12 February 2016 (near peak for the 2015-2016 summer) and 27 May 2016 (persistent rainy weather). Areas shaded in white on the map indicate where water take restrictions were in place within these water management sub-zones.

5.1.5 For more detailed information on which sites are in restriction, WaterMatters reports the latest flows and number of consent holders potential in restriction here http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-environment/resource-management/water/low-flow- restrictions-summary/. The map of affected catchments is here http://www.horizons.govt.nz/managing-environment/resource-management/water/watermatters/by- region/.

National Water Metering Regulations

This project is to ensure that holders of water take consents continue to work toward meeting the National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting.

5.1.6 A summary of the progress made by Horizons against the National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting as at May 2016 can be seen in Table 4 Summary of progress against National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting as at January 2016. The regulations are presently in effect to consents for takes of 20 litres per second or more, and for takes of 10 litres per second up to 20 litres per second.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 75

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 4 Summary of progress against National Regulations on Water Use Measurement and Reporting as at January 2016 Takes >20L/s Takes 10-20 L/s Takes 5-10 L/s 263 sites confirmed as metered 97 sites confirmed as metered

Item 8 Item 4 sites not yet set up to abstract or not 14 sites not yet set up to abstract This category not yet using at all in force – interim 10 have been followed up with numbers suggest: 4 sites not required to comply with correspondence; working on flow meter 101 consents in this regulations due to mode of abstraction installs, verifications or awaiting verification category; certification from company. 52 have meters 12 sites not yet metered / awaiting 2 where the location of the water meter installed already; installation needs to be reviewed 31 have telemetry installed to date; 1 new consent to be followed up, 1 consent 1 consent holder to surrender expired Verification status of meters: unknown. Total = 290 consents in this category Total = 115 consents in this category Numbers will change (2 expired, 2 surrendered) and be updated as 190 of these confirmed as verified and 42 of these confirmed as verified and 10 Nov 2016 passed test passed test approaches.

5.1.7 In summary, 405 consents are identified as requiring provision of water metering information to the Council as they provide for more than 10 L/s of water to be abstracted. Currently 287 of these 405 consented water take consents provide data automatically. In the interim it is required that the remaining 121 consents will provide the water use data by manual methods. Of the 408 consents, 359 have been identified as having water meters.

AnnexA 5.1.8 Verification of the accuracy of the meters for takes > 10L/s is also required as part of the National Water Regulations. Verification is required initially and then every five years. Presently a total of 202 metered takes in this category have been confirmed as being accurate (verified) by certified verifiers.

5.1.9 Of the metered consents in the region (all sizes of water takes) a total of 401 are currently providing automated information to Horizons, typically by telemetry. Of these, 256 have been inspected so far this year.

5.1.10 Staff continue the work on ensuring standard conditions for water takes reflect changes in the Water Meter Data National Environmental Monitoring Standards (NEMS).

Metering of Discharges to Land and Water

5.1.11 As previously reported, a programme has been established to improve the measurement of the volumes of effluent discharged to rivers and land. Over the reporting period, the stocktake of available discharge metering data had largely been completed. Table 5 below summarises the number and status (in terms of level of metering and data availability) of the 46 discharges assessed so far. Of these 43 have flow meters. Of the three that do not have flow meters one is a discharge to water and requires only estimates of effluent volume with quarterly sampling under the consent, the other two are discharges to land; one of which requires metering of the inflow as condition of consent. The three that are not metered are relatively small volumes (136 m3/day, 16.2 m3/day. and 18 m3/day respectively). Of those that are metered, 15 are automated and the data are available.

5.1.12 The next step will be to establish a prioritised schedule of improving automation and data supply, including ensuring that meters are installed (if required), improving the rate of automated data provision, verification of data that is being provided against meter readings, and verification of the meters that are providing the data. Further work also continues on refining the data connections in- house (for example, ensuring that the data naming conventions are correct).

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 76

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 5: Summary of discharge metering status across the Region No. of Reporting mechanism No. of No. of Consent discharges Automated Automated discharges discharges Manual (via 8 Item holder with flow and not assessed ??? spreadsheets) 1 meters available available Horowhenua District 7 7 0 5 2 Council Manawatu District 7 7 0 3 4 Council Rangitikei District 7 5 2 4 1 Council Palmerston North City 1 1 0 1 Council Ruapehu District 6 6 0 2 4 Council

Tararua District 7 7 0 3 4 Council Wanganui District 3 2 1 2 Council New Zealand AnnexA Defence 2 2 0 1 1 Force AFFCO 1 1 0 1 Feilding

DB Breweries 1 1 0 1

Riverlands 1 1 0 1

Fonterra 2 2 0 1 1 Winstone Pulp 1 1 0 1 International

1 These discharges are unavailable via our database at this stage but may be available via other means.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 77

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.2 Water Allocation Monitoring and Research Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Water Allocation Status and Surface and groundwater quantity  Ongoing.

Item 8 Item Monitoring Programmes monitoring including flow monitoring.  Ongoing; currently receiving data from 401 sites across the region (including smaller Telemetry installed to automatically takes). measure water use in the Region.  5 data-streams installed during the reporting period with 3 awaiting installation. Annual inspections of water take flow  Ongoing; 256 sites inspected meters as part of the telemetry to date for the season; programme. 24require follow-ups  Ongoing; to date 232 verifications completed (and Verifications complete as per the passed) by third party National Water Metering Regulations. suppliers (Irrigation NZ certified verifiers).

Water metering programme / National Water Metering Quality assurance and archiving of  To date 28 sites processed Regulations historical water metering information. for 2014-15 data

 There are 405 consents in AnnexA these categories. To date Meeting requirements of the National 359 confirmed as metered, Water Metering Regulations – takes 287 of which provide data >20 L/s, and10-20 L/s must comply by automatically. Non- 10 Nov 2012, 2014 respectively. compliances are being followed up by Regulatory Team.  Ongoing communication with Upper Manawatu consent holders to assist in process Communication of consent renewal.  Ongoing communication with water users as required throughout year.  Project initiated in 2013. Work ongoing with farmers Support of PhD study in collaboration Dairy Farm Water Use Project contacted and sites set up. with Massey University and DairyNZ. Expected completion date is 2016.  Staff met with stakeholders Scope the scale and contents of a to relay information on over- Water Allocation Policy programme for water allocation policy allocated catchments and to Implementation Effectiveness effectiveness monitoring and reporting. assist with identifying possible solutions.

James Lambie SCIENCE COORDINATOR

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOUCES & PARTNERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 78

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6 Surface Water Quality Item 8 Item 6.1 Activity Report (Surface Water Quality)

Water quality monitoring programmes

Horizons undertakes a wide range of water quality monitoring programmes that include monitoring of physico-chemical and biological parameters for State of the Environment Reporting, discharges, and contact recreation. The programmes include ongoing monitoring of rivers and lakes, and periodic reporting, including data provision to the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website.

Contact recreation monitoring

6.1.1 The contact recreation monitoring season finished during the April-May reporting period. Sites across the region have been identified for their high use and/or for historical or anecdotal use. The defining features of high use sites are the ease of access and sites where the local Territorial Authorities have installed features to facilitate or enhance use. The bathing suitability at these sites is reported on the Safe Swim Spots page on Horizons’ Website. One of the indicators reported is the suitability based on faecal indicator bacteria. This is either assessed using an established

relationship between flow and indicator bacteria or with direct weekly monitoring of bacteria levels (i.e. when there is no relationship between bacteria concentrations and flow). Bacteria concentration is one of the factors that influence the suitability of a site for contact recreation. There are also a range of other factors that relate to personal preference, such as the access, look and feel of the location, physical safety, water temperature and state of flow. A bathing suitability

indicator based on cyanobacteria levels is also reported on the Safe Swim Spots page. AnnexA 6.1.2 A summary of the weekly indicator bacteria monitoring results in comparison with the Ministry of Health (MOH) Microbiological water quality guidelines for recreational water (2003) was provided to public health at the end of the bathing season and is presented in Figure 2 as a percentage of samples at each of the sites that fall into the risk grades for indicator bacteria identified in the MOH guidelines. The risk grades are often shown as a traffic light where the colours indicate:

. Green – Should be safe for swimming; . Orange – Should be satisfactory for swimming; and . Red – Could be a health risk for swimming.

6.1.3 The microbiological water quality at the coastal sites indicated that swimming was safe from a human health perspective on all sampling occasions over the bathing season with the exception of Waikawa Beach and Hokio Beach, which exceeded the guideline values on two (8%) and three (12%) of weekly sampling occasions respectively.

6.1.4 The freshwater sites had a number of exceedences of the guideline values over the bathing season (1 November 2015 to 30 April 2016). Seven out of nine of the freshwater sites were suitable for swimming on more than 70% of sampling occasions; the exceptions to this are the Hokowhitu Lagoon (suitable on 62% of sampling occasions) and Waikawa Stream at the Estuary (suitable on 65% of sampling occasions). Faecal source tracking has been undertaken in the Waikawa Catchment to determine the source of E. coli and the information from this has been utilised to inform the Freshwater team’s work prioritisation.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 79

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

Figure 2: Summary of bathing risk from bacteria 2015-2016 recreation season (Green should be safe for swimming, Amber should be satisfactory for swimming and Red could be a health risk for swimming).

AnnexA

6.1.5 Relationships between flow and indicator bacteria have been assessed at 58 state of the environment monitoring sites across the Region. Flow recorder sites were used to automatically update the bathing suitability on the Safe Swim Spots webpage for 12 high use recreational sites over the 2015/2016 bathing season. It is envisaged that more sites will be added before the 2016/2017 bathing season. The flow thresholds have been established for the bathing sites using State of the Environment monitoring data and taking the river flow at which 95 percent of the data points under that flow were under the MOH 550 MPN/100 ml guideline (should be satisfactory for swimming). The method has been peer reviewed by Graham McBride, Principal Scientist, Water Quality from NIWA; he has called this a step-down percentile drop-off method. A technical report detailing the method and thresholds for the monitoring sites is in draft stage and will be available before the next bathing season.

6.1.6 Figure 3 presents an example of the underlying flow and E. coli data for the Manawatu at Teachers College site (just upstream of the Fitzherbert Bridge over the Manawatu River). The green line on this graph is the MOH 260 MPN/100 ml guideline (should be safe for swimming) the orange line is the MOH 550 MPN/100 ml guideline used as the standard for this method and the red line is the National Objectives Framework (NOF) bottom line for wading in the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management. The dashed black vertical line indicates the flow threshold used for Manawatu at Teachers College as derived by the step-down percentile drop-off method. In this case the site is identified as safe for swimming when below median flow (i.e. half of the time over the full length of record). The site does meet guideline values some of the time when flow is above the threshold (Figure 3). However, the frequency of being below the guideline is reduced at higher flows. When analysed for the 2015/2016 bathing season (1 November 2015 – 30 April 2016) the flow indicated the site was suitable for swimming 152 out of 183 days (87% of days).

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 80

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexA Figure 3: Manawatu at Teachers College flow vs. E. coli concentration. The green line - should be safe for swimming), Amber line - should be satisfactory for swimming, Red line - NOF bottom line for wading and the dashed Black line - flow threshold for bathing.

6.1.7 To provide an indication of how often the bathing sites with flow relationships were safe for swimming (based on the flow threshold) over the period 1 November 2015 – 30 April 2016 a comparison between the daily maximum flow and the established threshold was undertaken. Figure 4 presents the proportion of days (over the bathing when the daily maximum flow is below the established thresholds (blue bars). The grey bars indicate that the flow was above the threshold and subsequently represent the portion of the bathing season where there is uncertainty about the suitability of a site for swimming. The majority of sites were below the thresholds (and therefore identified as safe for swimming) more than 80 percent of days over the bathing season. Mangahao at Ballance was below the threshold just over 50 percent of days and Ohau at Rongomatane and Oroua at Almadale were below the threshold between 70 – 80 percent of days. Some of the flow sites represent more than one bathing site (e.g. Ohau at Rongomatane represents three bathing sites and Rangitikei at Mangaweka represents two bathing sites).

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 81

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

Figure 4: Proportion of days where the daily maximum flow is below the established threshold for recreation.

Action to improve E. coli

6.1.8 In order to reduce the impact of E. coli on bathing suitability across the Region the Science and Freshwater teams have been working to priortise areas across the Region where E. coli levels

AnnexA exceed guideline values during low flow conditions. This work includes intensive monitoring surveys to identify tributaries contributing high concentrations of E. coli, faecal source tracking to determine the source of the bacteria (cows, sheep, birds or human) and working with landowners in identified catchments to exclude stock from waterways and plant riparian margins.

6.1.9 An example of this work is the integrated programme around the Mowhanau Stream. The Mowhanau Stream has high contact recreation value, providing freshwater swimming opportunities for children from Wanganui and surrounding areas. The stream flows into the sea at the very popular Mowhanau/Kai Iwi beach and is adjacent to a large playground and holiday camp. Horizons’ swimming spots monitoring programme had identified that the Mowhanau Stream (at the Mowhanau Bridge) frequently did not comply with the Ministry of Health contact recreation water quality guidelines (Figure 5). With the 2014-15 season as an exception, there had been an improving trend since 2009-10, likely due to the increase in cattle exclusion fencing that was undertaken gradually over that time. The aim of the implementation work in this catchment is to fence the riparian margin to exclude stock, especially cattle, aiming to reduce summer E. coli levels. In conjunction with this, some of the lower reach of the stream is being fenced to improve inanga spawning habitat and planting to create stream shading in some areas to improve native fish habitat.

6.1.10 In recent years faecal source tracking has been undertaken in the catchment and identified the predominant source of E. coli is from cattle. However, some human sourced bacteria was also identified indicating potential inputs from septic tanks and/or a sewage treatment plant in the catchment. Targeted monitoring and investigations have identified occasional discharges of effluent from the sewage treatment plant. Contact has been made with Whanganui District Council to identify the issue. Over 2016/2017 staff intend to monitor this potential source more rigorously.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 82

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Mowhanau Stream at Beach Footbridge 100%

90% Item 8 Item

80%

70%

60%

50%

risk Category risk - 40%

30%

20%

10% Percent in Health in Percent

0% 2004_05 2005_06 2006_07 2007_08 2008_09 2009_10 2010_11 2011_12 2012_13 2013_14 2014_15 2015_16 Figure 5: Summary of Bathing risk for the Mowhanau Stream over the past 12 years. Green should be safe for swimming, Amber should be satisfactory for swimming and Red could be a health risk for swimming.

AnnexA 6.1.11 Further, THE Freshwater team have been undertaking similar initiatives targeting reductions in bacteria in a range of catchments. This includes fencing and planting of streams and working with territorial authorities to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to reduce E. coli in discharges. For example through the Manawatu River Accord and Fresh Start for Freshwater Clean-up Fund a number of wastewater treatment plants received upgrades to include UV filtration and improved clarification of effluent.

Resource accounting and joint research programme with DairyNZ

A joint research programme with DairyNZ investigating nutrient management opportunities and outcomes has been initiated. The project work is to focus on three separate water quality related projects during the 2015-16 year. The projects are outlined in the following paragraphs.

Project 1: Sources of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment in the Mangatainoka Catchment

This project investigates the likely water quality benefits of increased uptake of good management practices on dairy farms in the Mangatainoka Catchment. The project builds on knowledge from the Mangatainoka Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) project and includes practices such as effluent management, stock crossings and runoff from tracks. This project has been contracted to AgResearch to complete with input from Horizons and DairyNZ staff.

6.1.12 This report, which was completed during the reporting period, provides a high level analysis of potential losses of nutrients, sediment and bacteria that are not accounted for, or poorly accounted for by OVERSEER®. The first step in the process was to identify a list of these potential sources of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and sediment from dairy farms in the catchment, and review this list with Horizons staff and other local experts at a workshop (reported in Lucci et. al. 2015). This list was shortened to nine main sources or high risk situations which are:

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 83

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

. Leaky effluent ponds;

. Poorly timed farm dairy effluent; . Solid effluent applications;

Item 8 Item . Uneven application of effluent; . Lack of effluent irrigation scheduling tools; . Laneways; . Culverts; . Underpasses and bridges; . Stock access to streams; and . Cropping paddocks.

6.1.13 The EFP project identified cropping on dairy farms as an important source of N leaching (Taylor et. al. 2014), but as this source is already modelled in OVERSEER® it is not included as an N source in this study. However, cropping was included as a source of P and sediment loss.

6.1.14 An estimate of loss from each of the sources identified above was made using a combination of data supplied by Horizons, assumptions from published sources and expert opinion. The estimates were not intended to represent definitive farm-scale losses of N, P or sediment from each farm, but

were used as an indication of the relative risk of nutrient and sediment loss from each source when scaled up to the catchment level.

6.1.15 The sources and their estimated loads are presented in Table 6. To identify the sources with the greatest contribution to the catchment losses, the loads from each source were calculated for each farm and summed to the catchment level. This value was also divided by the OVERSEER® AnnexA estimate for the catchment, based on the EFPs (i.e. 588 t N and 22 t P from the rootzone), to give a basic indication of the relative contribution of the source, compared with what is already accounted for in OVERSEER. As noted in the table, some of these sources are already partially included in the OVERSEER® loss estimates. The loss from farms identified in Table 6 is an estimate of what is lost from the farm (i.e. bottom of rootzone or edge of field losses) and is not an estimate of the contribution of these sources directly to waterways.

6.1.16 The report estimated that the additional losses of N not identified by OVERSEER® for the individual sources were between 0.1 to 2% of the losses identified by OVERSEER®. Combining all of the additional sources of N they are estimated to add an extra 9% to the modelled OVERSEER® N losses (i.e. an additional 54.7 tonnes of N not accounted for by OVERSEER®).

6.1.17 The report estimated that the additional losses of P not identified by OVERSEER® for the individual sources were between 0.5 to 11.8% of the losses identified by OVERSEER®. Combining all of the additional sources of P they are estimated to add an extra 37.6% to the modelled OVERSEER® N losses (i.e. an additional 7.5 tonnes of P not accounted for by OVERSEER®).

6.1.18 The report identified that where crops are grazed there is the potential for significant gains for P and sediment loss when strategic grazing is used. Losses are reduced using this grazing method as a result of minimising overland flow volumes through strip grazing of crops from the top of the slope to the bottom.

6.1.19 The highest sources of N at the catchment level were culverts at 11.6 tonnes, stock access 9.2 tonnes and laneways 9 tonnes, followed by leaky ponds 7.1 tonnes and crossings 6.1 tonnes. The highest sources of P at the catchment level were laneways at 2.6 tonnes, culverts 1.8 tonnes and solid spreading (2 days prior to rain) 1.3 tonnes followed by crossings 0.9 tonnes and bridges 0.6 tonnes.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 84

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.1.20 This work highlights the linkages to the freshwater work programmes; for example, a focus on stock exclusion is supported by the findings. The report identified that farm laneways appear to be the source with the greatest relative risk of phosphorus loss. Direct access to streams and culvert crossings were also considered high risk because of their potential loading to streams, coinciding

with peak algal growth. Item 8 Item

6.1.21 The next steps for this work involve transferring the methods to other catchments across the region as part of future resource accounting work. Another site is communicating the findings to teams working with farmers to pass on the key messages that have been learned.

Table 6 : Summary of the potential source areas of nitrogen (N) phosphorus (P) and sediment.

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 85

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project 2: State, Trends and Drivers of Periphyton in the Horizons Region

This project assesses the state, trends and drivers of periphyton in the Region. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has been commissioned to undertake the project and a report is

Item 8 Item expected to be delivered in June 2016. Monitoring data from Horizons’ periphyton monitoring, flow monitoring and State of the Environment and discharge monitoring programmes has been provided to NIWA for inclusion in the project.

6.1.22 A workshop between Horizons and Dairy NZ staff to summarise feedback for the draft report was held in April. The aim is to complete the state and trends work in July.

6.1.23 The State and Trends report feedback was provided to NIWA and an updated draft is pending. The work to identify drivers/limits for periphyton had largely focused on modelling at regional/catchment level and it was determined that further work at a site level was required.

6.1.24 A workshop will be held in early June to scope the additional work for the drivers report and timeframes for delivery of the larger piece of work.

Project 3: Resource Accounting

This project is to focus on contaminant accounting in Horizons’ region. The National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) requires allocation and contaminant accounts to be undertaken every

five years for Freshwater Management Units within each regional council boundary. This project builds on progress Horizons has already made toward creating a set of contaminant accounts for the region, with the aim of delivering resource accounts for monitoring sites that have sufficient information. The focus of the project with DairyNZ will be the Rangitikei Catchment but many of the learnings from the work in this catchment will be utilised across the rest of the region.

AnnexA 6.1.25 During the reporting period a project team meeting was held where updates on progress were provided. The initial river load calculations for five monitoring sites in the catchment have been completed. This work progressed the development of the river load calculator built by Massey University. The calculator was presented at the March Environment Committee meeting. Landcare Research is continuing work to pull together the different sources of land use information to inform a comprehensive picture of land use for the catchment, in order to determine the contribution of the different land uses to the measured load in river.

6.1.26 Analysis of the state and trends of effluent quality and contaminant load contributions for the major point source discharges in the Rangitikei Catchment has been completed and the report is being drafted.

6.1.27 Analysis of the state and trends of river water quality in the catchment has progressed and a report is being drafted.

Lake monitoring

The purpose of this project is to establish the current water quality and ecological state of a select number of lakes within the region.

6.1.28 During the reporting period the first governance group meeting for the University of Waikato and partners MBIE targeted research programme was attended by staff. It is proposed that a range of the research from this programme will be carried out in the region. The scale and scope of this work is still under development. Staff are working with the research team to refine the work programme. Horizons staff will continue to attend governance meetings for this project every six months.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 86

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.2 Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Research Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Continuous water quality monitoring of sediment, pH and Continuous river water

dissolved oxygen continues within the established 8 Item River water quality monitoring measurement networks for these parameters. quality Monthly river water quality monitoring sampling via the SoE Data from this project has been provided for reporting on the programme programme and discharge Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website. monitoring network 2015-16 monitoring completed for the season. Contact Contact recreation Three new monitoring sites were added to the programme for recreation monitoring completed and the 2015-2016 summer. monitoring reported via websites and The data was uploaded to LAWA and Horizons’ Safe Swim programme annual report Spots site during the season. Monthly sampling of Lake Horowhenua resumed and is Lake Horowhenua ongoing. monitoring programme Lake buoy deployed and operational from July 2013. Lakes undertaken. Data from this monitoring programme has been provided for monitoring, reporting on the LAWA website. reporting and As proposed, five additional lakes have been included in the informing lake monitoring programme for the 2015-16 year. restoration The NIWA and Waikato University funding bid successfully programmes Lake monitoring gained $5 million over 5 years. Staff attended the first

governance meeting for the project in late May. NIWA has undertaken and reported on Lake SPI mapping for 12 coastal lakes. Support for the Staff have attended meetings for the Accord Action Plan Manawatu Updated Accord Action Plan update and provided support and meeting spaces for sector Leaders’ Accord groups.

The Lake Horowhenua Resource Consents were granted in AnnexA Support for the January but were subject to appeal to the Environment Court. Lake Evidence was presented at the Lake Horowhenua Lake Horowhenua Consents Horowhenua Environment Court hearing over the reporting period. Accord A monitoring programme has been undertaken to provide further information for the weed harvesting operation. Physico-chemical water quality data has been provided to NIWA for the periphyton project. An assessment into the potential nutrient reductions from the Horizons internal work first 35 nutrient management consents in the Mangatainoka programme Catchment has been completed and presented to council. Envirolink funding has been secured for NIWA to provide advice to staff on calculating nutrient budgets for lakes. This work has been contracted to AgResearch to complete with input from Horizons and DairyNZ staff. DairyNZ/HRC Project 1: A workshop was held in August with experts from DairyNZ, Sources of Nitrogen, Resource Horizons, Massey University and AgResearch to review and Phosphorus and Sediment Accounting and prioritise the risk matrix. in the Mangatainoka Dairy NZ Joint Data has been provided to AgResearch to assist with Catchment Report Research reporting. Programme This work has been completed. A contract has been established between DairyNZ and NIWA for this work to be undertaken. Flow, periphyton and physico-chemical water quality data Dairy NZ/HRC Project 2: from Horizons’ monitoring programmes has been provided to State, Trends and Drivers of NIWA to enable reporting to be undertaken. Periphyton in the Horizons A review of the first draft has been completed and the report Region split into two documents. The first is due back as a final draft at the end of May. A workshop to scope the additional drivers work will be held in early June.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 87

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date

A workshop was held in July 2015 with Horizons scientists, Massey University, Landcare Research and DairyNZ to scope this project further. Contracts have been finalised with Massey University and Item 8 Item Landcare Research to undertake work for this project. A contaminant loading workshop was held in November. DairyNZ/HRC Project 3: Data was provided to Massey University in January for load Resource Accounting analysis for the project. River loads have been calculated for five monitoring sites in the catchments. A state and trends assessments of effluent quality has been completed. A state and trend assessment of the river water quality was undertaken during the reporting period.

Maree Patterson SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 88

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7 Biomonitoring

7.1 Activity Report (Biomonitoring) Item 8 Item Biomonitoring:

The Biomonitoring Programme features the aquatic macroinvertebrate, periphyton, cyanobacteria, didymo and freshwater fish monitoring programmes that form part of the water quality monitoring activity.

7.1.1 These programmes continued during the reporting period with the main focus being on completion of the major fieldwork season. The results were presented to the May Environment Committee meeting.

Phormidium (cyanobacteria in rivers) monitoring:

Phormidium continues to be a key issue for Horizons and we are partnering with external research agencies to better understand the causes of Phormidium proliferation in order to inform management practices. The monthly periphyton monitoring runs are used to check if Phormidium (a type of cyanobacteria) is present. Where Phormidium is found a sample is taken and this is sent for analysis for toxicity levels.

7.1.2 Phormidium was observed at a range of monitoring sites within the Region during summer. During

the reporting period, 36 samples that were collected over the course of the 2016-2017 monitoring year were sent to Cawthron for toxin analysis. The results are expected at the end of June.

7.1.3 The project investigating ecological effects of Phormidium on macroinvertebrates has been completed for the financial year with five sites completed.

Macroinvertebrate monitoring: AnnexA

Macroinvertebrate communities (MCIs) provide an integrated indication of the health and life supporting capacity of waterways over annual time periods.

7.1.4 A final report has been received looking at the state and trends of macroinvertebrate communities across the Region, including the data from the 2014-15 season. The results were presented to the May Environment Committee meeting.

7.1.5 Monitoring has ceased for the 2015-16 season with 97 sites completed.

Periphyton monitoring:

Periphyton is the community of slime and algae that grow on the river bed. This project suite informs the relationship between periphyton growth, nutrient loads and stream flows

7.1.6 The Medium Advice ($20,000) Envirolink grant to investigate whether the preferential uptake of ammonia is a factor in nuisance periphyton growth downstream of point source discharges is in its final stages of reporting. A draft of the report has been received with the final to be completed prior to the end of June. This literature review will provide a monitoring framework to test if point source discharges are a significant contributor to periphyton growth.

7.1.7 The Ohau-Waikawa Catchment water quality/periphyton fortnightly monitoring programme continues. The Ohau-Waikawa project is supported by the new funding provided by Council to link the state of periphyton and other surface water quality indicators to land use and groundwater flows in key catchments. This programme is sampling 16 sites for water quality and 10 of those for periphyton fortnightly.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 89

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7.1.8 Monitoring has been undertaken in the Ohau-Waikawa Catchment using nutrient diffusing substrates at five sites. This monitoring is being undertaken to look at the changes that may occur in the catchment in terms of nutrient limitations on periphyton growth. This information helps inform us on how different parts of the catchment respond to different nutrients.

Item 8 Item 7.1.9 As reported in the Surface Water Quality section of the Environment Committee Report, the project to analyse the last six years’ of periphyton data has been initiated. This analysis is co- funded by DairyNZ and will be the most comprehensive of its type in New Zealand. A draft of the entire report is has been received. The state and trends component of the report is expected to be delivered in July.

Freshwater Fish Monitoring:

The Freshwater Fish Monitoring programme involves an ongoing survey of fish species abundance at selected fishable SoE sites, re-checking the Sites of Significance - Aquatic as part of the One Plan policy effectiveness assessments, and undertaking exploratory surveys to further our knowledge.

7.1.10 The Medium Advice ($20,000) Envirolink grant to investigate ways to successfully monitor piharau (lamprey) populations in the Whanganui Catchment continues in collaboration with DoC/iwi. Piharau samplers were deployed at 30 sites in the Whanganui catchment as recommended by Dr Cindy Baker from NIWA. This monitoring has been completed with the samplers at NIWA for analysis. Analysis of the samplers will enable us to see if piharau are present upstream in the

catchment and is expected prior to the end of June.

Coastal & Estuary Monitoring & Research:

The coastal and estuary monitoring and research programme involves monitoring the state and trends of estuarine and coastal water quality as a performance indicator of policy effectiveness and to provide

AnnexA information on the general health of the estuarine and coastal water management zones.

7.1.11 Monthly monitoring of water quality at coastal and estuary sites continues.

7.1.12 Work also continues on the Envirolink funded project engaging NIWA and Wriggle consultants to assess the susceptibility of the Region’s estuaries to nutrients and sediment. The analyses are complete and the team at Wriggle are on track to report on the findings by 30 June 2016. The project will utilise the recently developed Estuary Trophic Index (ETI) to define each estuary’s trophic and sedimentation state and subsequently provide monitoring recommendations and priorities. A draft report has been received.

7.1.13 The broad scale estuary habitat mapping programme has been initiated with a survey of the Manawatu Estuary by Wriggle consultants over the reporting period. The estuarine and terrestrial habitats of the Manawatu Estuary have been mapped following the National Estuary Monitoring Protocol. A draft report is due 30 June 2016. This work will enable the tracking of estuary health over time.

Lake monitoring:

7.1.14 The lakes report for the monitoring in 2016 was reported to the Committee in May.

7.1.15 During the reporting period, staff spent time determining the priorities for Lake Submerged Plant Indicators (LakeSPI) investigations for 2017-2018 monitoring year. This methodology has been developed by NIWA and allows a comparison of lakes at both a regionally and national scale.

Lake Horowhenua macrophyte survey

7.1.16 As previously reported, NIWA repeated a macrophyte distribution survey at 13 sites across Lake Horowhenua. A copy of the results have been received. This information helps inform the Lake

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 90

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Horowhenua Weed Harvesting Strategy and was utilised as a part of the recent resource consent appeal process.

7.2 Biomonitoring Monitoring and Research Summary Item 8 Item Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date SoE information on the  A final copy of the state and trends report for macroinvertebrate health of the Region’s communities has been received. This report includes the data Invertebrates waterways (both state collected last summer. and trend)  Monitoring for 2015-16 has been completed with 97 sites sampled.  Monthly monitoring is ongoing.  The fortnightly monitoring in the Mangatainoka Catchment has SoE information and ceased as 24 months of data has been collected. Monthly knowledge of the monitoring at these sites will continue. relationship between Periphyton  An Envirolink bid was successful to commission NIWA to research flow, nutrients and whether ammonia is preferentially taken up by periphyton, periphyton growth resulting in faster growth and higher biomass being reached. A around the Region draft of this report has been received for review.  The Ohau-Waikawa intensive monitoring programme has commenced with monitoring being completed twice a month.  When seen on periphyton monitoring runs, samples of cyanobacteria from around the Region are collected to investigate regional toxin production. 36 samples that have been collected Cyanobacteria Benthic cyanobacteria over the 2015-16 have been sent to Cawthron for toxin analysis.  The research on the ecological effects of cyanobacteria has continued with 5 sites being sampled in this monitoring year following the recommendation made by Cawthron.

 Monitoring occurs in May, November and February each year. AnnexA Monitoring to check for  The next round of sampling will be undertaken in November 2016. Didymo didymo incursions.  The May 2016 samples are with the lab for analysis.  All results from the February samples were negative.  Monitoring of the remaining SOS-A sites that have not been resurveyed has commenced. Monitoring programme Freshwater completed and  An Envirolink bid was successful in providing a monitoring Fish reported on. methodology for lamprey, building on the summer’s previous work. Advice is to be provided by NIWA and completed prior to June 2016. Stream  Collection of reference data is continuing. Ecological SEV model specific to  An Envirolink application for a fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Valuation the Horizons Region for the Region was successful. This will inform the development of (SEV) the SEV model for Horizons’ Region Broad scale estuary  Water quality monitoring is ongoing. monitoring programme  The broad scale estuary monitoring of Manawatu Estuary was established and a completed in late January. A draft copy of the report has been Coastal and report completed on received. Estuary the susceptibility of the monitoring  The assessment of the susceptibility of the Region’s estuaries to Region’s estuaries to nutrients and sediment is underway. A draft copy of the report has nutrient and sediment been received for comments and the final report expected by 30 inputs. June 2016.  A final copy of the NIWA LakeSPI report for 10 of the regions Macrophyte coastal lakes has been finalised. Lakes communities within the monitoring  The macrophyte distribution surveys completed in 2002 in Lake Region’s lakes Horowhenua have been redone twice this monitoring year with the final report being received from NIWA.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 91

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Logan Brown SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY

Item 8 Item Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 92

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8 Environmental Research and Monitoring

8.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress Item 8 Item Reporting Period Measure Actual Target 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Complete State of the Environment report including reviewing and updating environmental 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% indicators *1 Undertake policy and programme implementation effectiveness monitoring and provide input into 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% programmes and policies that are in development *1 Environmental information is made available to the public via Horizons’ website, Environment 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% Committee reporting and on request, including contributions to national level reporting *1 Monitor and report on air quality *1 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100%

*1 AP/LTP targets

8.2 Activity Report

A summary of the progress made against the targets for the year is in the table at the end of this section. Further brief updates for the reporting period from 1 April 2016 to 31 May 2016 are overviewed in the sections below. Reporting against the full year (100%) target will appear in the next Environment Committee Report. AnnexA

One Plan Monitoring and Evaluation, and SoE Reporting:

The objective of this programme for 2015-16 is to continue to develop a framework for assessing the effectiveness of the One Plan in delivering intended outcomes, and to report on the State of the Environment. Staff time spent on this activity is generally been encompassed within the reported outputs of environmental monitoring programmes.

8.2.1 As noted in the section on Groundwater Monitoring and Research, a project is underway to provide clarification and guidance around the interpretation of One Plan Policy 5.6 which provides for the general management of groundwater. The development of a technical note will define a methodology by which the existing groundwater quality should be defined, and describe the measures against which groundwater quality should be judged and the settings where different standards may be appropriate. The technical guidance document is expected to be delivered in June. Air Monitoring:

Horizons continues to monitor concentrations of fine particles under 10 microns in diameter (PM10) in Taihape and Taumarunui, the Region’s two gazetted airsheds or air quality monitoring areas. It uses Beta Attenuation Monitoring (BAM) instruments located in the two towns.

8.2.2 The National Environmental Standards (NES) for air quality specify a 24-hour threshold 3 (standard) for PM10 of 50 micrograms per cubic metre (50 µg/m ), with an annual guideline value level set at 20 µg/m3. The NES allow for one breach of the average standard per year before requiring the implementation of formal air quality management strategies and proactive management of the causes of air quality decline, such as consent regimes for household wood burners.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 93

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8.2.3 Bar graphs summarising the percentage of time that PM10 concentrations are in the good, acceptable, alert or action categories (as defined by MfE) on a calendar year basis for our monitoring sites at Taihape and Taumarunui (from the start of recordings to 2015) are shown in Appendix 1. They show that there were no issues with non compliance at their site to the end of

2015. Item 8 Item

8.2.4 The monitoring in Taihape for the last year between June 2015 to 30 May 2016 shows that there 3 were no exceedances of the PM10 50 µg/m standard. There were four exceedances of the alert level (35 µg/m3) in early winter – two each in May 2015 and July 2015. The 12-month record (from Horizons web site) is shown below.

8.2.5 Monitoring of fine particulate concentrations in Taumarunui for the last year between June 2015 to 30 May 2016 provides a different picture. Like Taihape, there was no exceedance of the PM10 50 µg/m3 standard during the 2015 winter period, although there were seven days where the alert level concentration (35 µg/m3) was exceeded – three in May 2015 and four in July 2015. However, over the six day Easter period of 25 March to 30 March 2016 (Good Friday through to AnnexA the following Wednesday) there were four exceedances of the 50 µg/m3 standard and one of the alert level recorded. The 12-month record (from Horizons web site) is shown below – note: the scale on the x-axis is different to that for Taihape above.

8.2.6 The Taumarunui exceedences continue to be investigated to determine the source of the event. The annual calibration of the monitoring equipment was bought forward and carried out on 5 April 2016 by WaterCare technicians. Its report indicates that the instrument was operating normally. Staff have been in contact with Ruapehu District Council, the Ruapehu District Health Officer and the Ministry for the Environment.

8.2.7 Staff are continuing to work through a process to identify the cause(s) of these abnormally high readings and an experienced air quality specialist, Dr Emily Wilton, is preparing a report on the exceedances. To inform this report some discussions with locals have been undertaken including some door-to-door interviews with local residents to identify whether there was a one-off event locally. Reports of crop burn off in the area near Taumarunui are being further investigated.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 94

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8.2.8 The 2011 Users Guide to the revised NES for Air Quality (updated 2104) allows for exceedances that are due to faulty equipment or some isolated one-off event to apply for an exemption from the Ministry for the Environment. We are pursuing this option and have three months from the time of the exceedance to submit a case to MfE.

8.2.9 Should our case be declined by the Minister, there will be implications both Horizons and Ruapehu 8 Item District Council in terms of their management of the airshed into the future. This includes a requirement to develop a formal strategy for the Taumarunui airshed to ensure compliance with the NES into the future. Further information will be provided to the next Committee meeting.

8.2.10 To date Horizons has carried out a radio-based campaign in mid February to raise awareness of collecting firewood over summer months and burning dry firewood. The two week campaign using radio stations in Kapiti, Palmerston North, Wanganui and Taupo provided Region-wide coverage. The media release on healthier heating was also done in late May as advised at the last Committee meeting.

8.2.11 A further region wide radio campaign providing advice on good burning practices (both for wood burners and backyard fires) and avoiding smokey fires is programmed for early June. The installation camera at the Taumarunui monitoring site has also been authorised and will be undertaken in June/July.

Provide Environmental Information:

The provision of environmental information through servicing data requests directly or via working with other teams continued during the reporting period.

8.2.12 Work was started in preparation for displaying Horizons’ air quality monitoring data reported

through the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) website. Staff have finished delivery of the AnnexA components for the Air Module. The website is expected to go live on LAWA on 6 June 2016. Attached as Appendix 2 are a few screen shots of the what the Air module will show.

8.2.13 Work has started in preparation for the water refresh on the LAWA website. This refresh is due to go live in September 2016. It encompasses the water quantity, river water quality, lake water quality and coastal water quality modules. A project team has been established to deliver on the update.

Envirolink Update:

The Envirolink Fund Provides funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment – Science and Innovation for regional councils to engage research from the Crown Research Institutes and universities. Horizons has been a proactive subscriber of the fund.

8.2.14 The projects that have been funded by Envirolink over 2016-17 are on-track. All of these have June 2016 target dates. As reported in the Biodiversity Monitoring and Research section of this Environment Committee Report, the literature review concerning feral goats and their contribution to soil erosion is now complete.

8.2.15 The workshops on coastal lakes prioritisation and on wetland biodiversity monitoring are also complete. Brief post-workshop reports detailing the recommendations of the research providers are pending.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 95

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8.3 Environmental Research Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date  Ongoing through a range of programmes. Item 8 Item  Development of the SoE Portfolio and Science One Plan Monitoring Operational Plan 2015-16. Ongoing information and Evaluation, and collection and analysis to  An assessment of the water quality outcomes from State of Environment inform future SoE reporting implementation of the One Plan rules around Reporting nutrient management in the Mangatainoka Catchment has been completed and reported to Council. Information provision to the  Information provision to external organisations has public and external continued. agencies The Air Matters and Water Matters websites continue to provide up to date information on a daily basis. The annual update of water quality information for the Provide environmental LAWA website was completed in September. information Information provision via Analysis of the state and trend of water quality was websites completed for the nation’s data in October. Provision of Air Quality data for LAWA is complete and the Air Module is to go live on 6 June 2016. Project team established to deliver the update to the water modules within LAWA for September 2016.  Air quality monitoring continues in the Taihape and Air quality monitoring and Taumarunui airsheds. reporting  Investigation into recent air quality measurements in

AnnexA Monitoring and Taumarunui is underway. reporting on  Education material on encouraging healthier heating environmental health is being promoted and our website is being updated. (air quality) Air quality public education  A radio campaign for firewood collection was carried campaign – cleaner heating out in February 2016 and a further region wide campaign on good heating is proceeding in late May/June.

Harold Barnett ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 96

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Appendix 1

AIR QUALITY MONITORING – TAIHAPE

Bar graphs summarising daily PM concentrations in a calendar years - 2006 to 2015.

10 8 Item

100% "Action" >Guideline 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 97

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Summary statistics for PM10 concentrations measured at Taihape.

Item 8 Item MfE Indicator categories PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour average average average average average average average average average average 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

"Good" 0-33% of 81% 76% 73% 79% 81% 77% 73% 64% 71% 75% guideline "Acceptable" 33-66% of 18% 18% 24% 19% 18% 20% 23% 33% 28% 23% guideline "Alert" 66-100% of 1% 5% 4% 2% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 2% guideline "Action" >Guideline 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Percentage of valid data 99% 100% 98% 68% 99% 99% 98% 83% 89% 96% Annual average (µg m-3) 12 14 14 13 12 13 14 15 14 15 Measured exceedences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

99.7 %ile concentration

33 41 45 39 33 46 38 50 34 40 (µg m-3) Second highest 34 41 45 37 34 46 38 49 34 40 concentration Annual maximum 24-hr 40 42 46 43 40 47 39 61 38 41 (µg m-3) Median 24-hr

AnnexA 11 11 12 11 11 11 12 13 12 13 concentration (µg m-3) Standard deviation 6 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 6 6 Number of records 361 365 359 250 361 363 356 303 325 350

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 98

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Appendix 1 - AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA– TAIHAPE

Bar graphs summarising daily PM10 concentrations in a calendar month - 2006 to 2015. 2006 2007

"Action" >Guideline "Action" >Guideline 8 Item 100% 100%

80% "Alert" 66-100% of 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline guideline

0% 0%

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

2008 2009 "Action" >Guideline "Action" >Guideline 100% 100%

80% "Alert" 66-100% of 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline guideline

0% 0%

July July

May May

June June

April April

March March

August August

January January

October October

February February

December December

November November

September September

2010 2011 "Action" >Guideline 100% 100% "Action" >Guideline

80% "Alert" 66-100% of 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline guideline 60% 60% AnnexA "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline guideline

0% 0%

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

2012 2013 "Action" >Guideline 100% "Action" >Guideline 100%

80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0% 0%

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

2014 2015 "Action" >Guideline 100% "Action" >Guideline 100%

80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0% 0%

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 99

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Appendix 1(cont.)

AIR QUALITY MONITORING – TAUMARUNUI

Bar graphs summarising daily PM concentrations in a calendar year - 2009 to 2015.

Item 8 Item 10

100%

80% "Action" >Guideline

60% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline

40% "Acceptable" 33-66% of guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

AnnexA

Summary statistics for PM10 concentrations measured at Taumarunui.

MfE Indicator categories PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour average average average average average average average 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

"Good" 0-33% of guideline 75% 64% 48% 60% 50% 69% 77% "Acceptable" 33-66% of 23% 30% 45% 35% 45% 25% 21% guideline "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 1% 6% 6% 5% 5% 6% 2% "Action" >Guideline 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Percentage of valid data 45% 68% 64% 97% 80% 88% 87% Annual average (µg m-3) - 13 15 17 17 17 15 13 estimated Measured exceedences 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 99.7 %ile concentration (µg m-3) 37 49.5 54 47 41 46 0 Second highest concentration 36 48 49.5 47 40 45 45 Annual maximum 24-hr (µg m-3) 38 55 65 49.7 47 47 45 Median 24-hr concentration (µg 10 14 17 14 16 13 11 m-3) Standard deviation 6 9 9 8 8 8 7 Number of records 163 247 233 355 292 321 318

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 100

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Appendix 1(cont)

AIR QUALITY MONITORING – TAUMARUNUI

Bar graphs summarising daily PM concentrations in a calendar month - 2009 to 2015.

10 8 Item

2009 2010 "Action" >Guideline "Action" >Guideline 100% 100%

80% "Alert" 66-100% of 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline guideline

0% 0%

July July

May May

June June

April April

March March

August August

January January

October October

February February

December December

November November

September September

2011 2012 "Action" >Guideline

100% 100% "Action" >Guideline

80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0% 0%

AnnexA

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

2013 2014 "Action" >Guideline 100% 100% "Action" >Guideline

80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline 20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0% 0%

July

July

May

May

June

April

June

April

March

March

August

August

January

January

October

October

February

February

December

December

November

November

September September

2015 100% "Action" >Guideline

80% "Alert" 66-100% of guideline 60% "Acceptable" 33-66% of 40% guideline

20% "Good" 0-33% of guideline

0%

July

May

June

April

March

August

January

October

February

December

November September

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 101

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

APPENDIX 2 LAWA (Land And Water Aotearoa) Website – Air Module

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 102

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

APPENDIX 2 (cont) LAWA (Land And Water Aotearoa) Website – Air Module

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 103

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

APPENDIX 2 (cont) LAWA (Land And Water Aotearoa) Website – Air Module

Item 8 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 104

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

9 Land Research and Monitoring Item 8 Item 9.1 Plan Targets

The Land Research and Monitoring section reports on the Land Management Research and Monitoring service in the Annual Plan, which includes the fluvial monitoring and research, and land monitoring and research activity. This work is closely linked to other research and monitoring activities, and provides information for management of gravel takes, flood protection schemes, land application of wastewater, and the SLUI programme.

Brief updates for the reporting period (1 April 2016 to 31 May 2016) are provided in the sections below. Reporting against the full year (100%) target will appear in the next Environment Committee Report. A summary of the progress made against the targets for the year is provided in the table at the end of this section.

Reporting Period YTD Target Measure Actual 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Track changes in the health of the

20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% Region’s land and fluvial resource *1 Inform policy and non-regulatory 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% programme development *1 Assess policy and implementation 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100%

effectiveness *1 AnnexA *1 AP/LTP targets

9.2 Activity Report

Fluvial monitoring and reporting:

The fluvial survey programme provides information on the changes in levels of aggradation or degradation of river channels and berms. This information is important for the management of gravel takes from the Region’s rivers and flood protection schemes, and as an indicator of the efficacy of programmes such as SLUI. The work is coordinated by a cross-organisational team involving Science, Operations and Survey staff.

9.2.1 The survey team has completed its 2015/16 programme with the finishing the survey of the Waikawa Stream, south of Levin, since the last report. The programme this year included the Oroua River, the Makino Stream, selected sections in the Kiwitea Stream and the Waikawa Stream.

9.2.2 Horizons engineers within the River Management team undertake the data analysis and reporting on fluvial surveys. Reporting of the results of the 2014-2015 survey of the South East Ruahine Scheme was reported to the Catchment Operations Committee in April 2016. The report on the Kawhatau River survey is next on the list to be completed.

Gravel extraction:

9.2.3 The collection and storage of information on the amount of gravel being extracted from schemes and consents is ongoing. The figure below depicts the volumes of gravel extraction so far this financial year compared to previous years. At the end of quarter three this financial year, the reported gravel extraction amounts were similar to those reported in the 2014-15 financial year.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 105

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

600,000

) 3 500,000

Item 8 Item 400,000 Q4 300,000 Q3 200,000 Q2

100,000 Q1 Gravelvolume extracted (m 0 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Financial Year

Figure 6: Extracted gravel volumes from 2011-12 financial year to the 2015-16 financial year showing the extraction in each quarter (Quarter 1 (Q1) is July, August and September, Quarter 2 (Q2) is October, November, and December, Quarter 3 (Q3) is January, February and March, Quarter 4 (Q4) is April, May and June).

Sedimentation and river schemes:

A new long-term research programme is being developed to investigate options that extend the life of the flood protection infrastructure by improving knowledge about sediment movement and deposition in rivers.

AnnexA 9.2.4 As reported previously, the LiDAR survey over the Oroua River and Lower Manawatu River has been commissioned. It is still expected that the imagery will be acquired before June, with analysis to be undertaken over 2016-2017. The River Management, Science, Survey and Catchment Information teams met in April to discuss the processing and analysis of the LiDAR information, the next steps in determining the sources of the aggradation, and the approaches available to manage this.

9.2.5 Discussions about the next steps in this process have continued in the reporting period. As a consequence of these discussions, further work was undertaken by the Survey team to field truth ground reference points, and presently the Catchment Information Team are preparing the existing LiDAR information for comparative analysis.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 106

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

9.3 Land Research and Monitoring Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date  Survey work in the Kawhatau River, Makuri-iti Stream, Upper

Whanganui River, Upper Mangahao River and Mangatainoka 8 Item River was completed last year.  The 2015-16 survey programme originally included the Lower Rangitikei River – this has been re-scheduled to 2016-17. Fluvial Cross-sectional survey monitoring and  Survey of the Oroua River (122 cross sections) has been information to inform research to completed. gravel management and inform gravel  Survey of the Makino Stream (57 sections) and selected flood control works management sections of the Kiwitea Stream (6) have been completed.  Survey of the Waikawa River (50 sections) has been completed.  Gravel extraction data continues to be collected and collated on a quarterly basis.  DHI has scoped development of a catchment/sediment transport model to inform long-term management decisions around flood protection schemes.  Staff have reviewed the report, River Management staff have revised the project scope, and the Survey team is completing Scoping of a model to Sedimentation a stocktake of the information available for the project.

inform long-term and river  Project team is determining the immediate priorities for management of schemes schemes collection of new information. in relation to sediment  LiDAR survey of the Manawatu and Oroua Rivers has been commissioned. Staff are discussing the next steps for this project once the data is received.

 Existing LiDAR survey information is being prepped for the AnnexA comparative analysis. Staff advice and input Lake into fluvial/land  Staff have provided technical input into the integrated Horowhenua implementation projects stormwater management project and the sediment trap implementation as part of the Lake wetland project of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-Up Fund projects support Horowhenua Clean-Up project. Fund project  The Dairy Shed Effluent Storage Calculator and the Town Effluent Calculator, tools developed by this research portfolio, continue to be used on a regular basis.  Horizons continues to support the on-site wastewater system trials at Rotorua, along with many other funding partners.  Staff continue to support and assist Territorial Authorities Information around (mainly the Horowhenua and Rangitikei District Councils) and wastewater treatment on the general public with approvals of design and queries about Informing land land, including dairy farm on-site wastewater systems design and management. treatment of effluent, on-site  The trial of municipal effluent treatment using tephra at wastewater wastewater treatment Dannevirke has finished and the final report of results is and land treatment of expected in May 2016. municipal wastewater  Filter material from the Dannevirke pilot study will be utilised in a glasshouse experiment to evaluate the fertiliser use of the tephra.  Research findings from the tephra investigations are now being scaled up into full-scale systems. The Manawatu Clean- Up Fund has supported systems being constructed at Dannevirke and Woodville.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 107

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date

 Envirolink funding was received to investigate the efficacy of the SLUI programme under different predicted climate change Predicting water Information on expected scenarios. quality outcomes  Landcare Research has provided a final report. A summary of Item 8 Item water quality results from from the SLUI work under different results was reported in the Environment Committee report of Sustainable SLUI management October 2015. Land Use scenarios Initiative (SLUI)  An updated estimate of water quality outcomes from SLUI implementation to the end of 2015 has been provided by Landcare Research.  Envirolink funding has been received to investigate leaching Report and gather on representative sheep and beef farms in the Mangatainoka Nutrient leaching information on nutrient Catchment. from sheep and leaching from sheep and beef farms beef farms in the  Landcare Research has provided a final report. A summary of Mangatainoka Catchment results were reported in the Environment Committee Report of October 2015.

Support of events that  DairyNZ and Horizons held a workshop in August to share Supporting complete extension and knowledge around nutrient management, including looking at extension and research communication some of the nutrient management approaches from other research with farmers and the regions and at the new science underway around nutrient communication industry management.

 Envirolink funding has been received to investigate options Report implications of Overseer and and implications for implementing nutrient management rules using farm-scale soils soils data using farm-scale soil data in Overseer. data in Overseer

AnnexA

Harold Barnett ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST

Maree Patterson SENIOR SCIENTIST – WATER QUALITY

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOUCES & PARTNERSHIPS

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 108

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

10 Biodiversity Research & Monitoring

10.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress Item 8 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure Target 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Track changes in the health of the Region’s 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% living heritage *1 Inform policy, habitat protection, and 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% biosecurity programme development *1 Assess policy and implementation 20% 20% 20% 15% 17% 92% 100% effectiveness *1 *1 AP/LTP targets

10.2 Activity Report

A summary of progress made against the targets during the year is provided in the table at the end of this section. Further brief updates for the reporting period (1 April 2016 to 31 May 2016) are included in the sections below. Reporting against the full year (100%) target will appear in the next Environment

Committee Report.

Regional Biodiversity Monitoring Programme:

The objective of this project is to review Horizons’ current terrestrial and wetlands biodiversity inventory and monitoring systems, to check that these match the information needed to assess the effectiveness of policy implementation. The project also aims to determine what additional monitoring is needed to assess policy AnnexA effectiveness and Horizons’ capacity to adopt the nationally consistent regional council biodiversity indicators.

10.2.1 Staff continued work with the Biodiversity team to test the recently developed “Top 200” monitoring protocol. This method includes “inputs” measures (such as, fencing, control of weed infestation and pest animal) to account for activity and “outputs” measures (such as, forest canopy cover and quantitative measure of regenerating understorey vegetation) to account for state and trend in condition. To date 12 bush remnants have been visited to trial this monitoring protocol. The field trials are expected to continue until the end of the financial year. An analysis of efficacy will be undertaken later this calendar year.

10.2.2 Staff workshopped a review of the current monitoring of the “Top 100” wetlands programme, and discussed potential directions for future monitoring of wetlands in the Region. The workshop was guided by Beverly Clarkson from Landcare Research, funded by a small ($5k) Envirolink Advice Grant. During the workshop Dr Clarkson affirmed that Horizons’ revamped Rapid Ecological Assessment protocol (including wetland pressures and condition assessment) and the inventory work of the past has put us in good stead for reporting Horizons’ progress against possible indicators under the National Objective Framework (NOF) in relation to reporting changes in wetland extent and condition. The proposals for NOF-related reporting for wetlands are presently under development. Dr Clarkson is one of the science advisors to that process. The ability to report against the NOF is one way in which Horizons will be able to measure the effectiveness of Horizons wetlands management policies.

10.2.3 To better align with possible NOF requirements Dr Clarkson has recommended that the monitoring inventory be revised to identify wetland types (swamps versus marshes versus bogs) so that the monitoring system and “Top 100” programme can be better directed to reflect a representative suite of wetlands across the Region. This recommendation is consistent with the earlier recommendation by Dr Singers that Horizons’ “Top 100” wetlands programme needs to be able to demonstrate that management covers the full range of wetlands types to meet the One Plan

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 109

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

objectives to maintain and enhance biodiversity. Dr Clarkson has also recommended the inclusion of vegetation change (plot-based) monitoring into the current assessment system. This recommendation addresses a known weakness of Horizons previous monitoring protocols where wetland “condition” is assessed indirectly, and a means of directly and objectively monitoring vegetation change is needed. Staff are working through the financial and management Item 8 Item implications of adopting Dr Clarkson’s recommendations. These implications will be reported as part of the overall review of the regional biodiversity monitoring programme.

Forest Fragment and Wetlands Monitoring Programmes:

The objective of this activity is to continue to collect and maintain records on the condition and extent of high priority bush remnants and wetlands, and to track changes over time.

10.2.4 As reported above, 12 bush remnants have so far been visited to trial a monitoring protocol for assessing bush remnant condition and change over time. The objective this year is to produce a system and field test it. Reporting of actual results (bush remnant condition) will not be available until field testing is complete.

10.2.5 The re-survey of palustrine (swampy) wetland systems in the Manawatu Catchment continues. This brings the field survey to completion with a total of 35 sites that have been re-assessed for

wetland extent and condition. The analysis is underway.

10.2.6 As explained in previous reports to the Environment Committee, development of indicators for reporting changes in wetland condition have also been a focus of this year’s work. The index development work is complete and the system has now been applied across the coastal lakes information collected in 2015-2016. A report on the condition of the wetland margin of the

Region’s coastal lakes is in the final stages of preparation. AnnexA

Photo 8: Montage of Orouakaitawa Lagoon, taken in 2004. This wetland is about 5km north of Foxton Beach, equidistant between the coast and SH 1.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 110

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

Photo 9: Montage of Orouakaitawa Lagoon, taken 2016. The encroachment of raupo along the margin of the lagoon appears evident in this montage. In reality, the areal extent of open water has stayed the same (1.9 hectares).

Totara Reserve Regional Park Outcomes Monitoring:

As part of the package of preserving and enhancing the natural heritage of the Totara Reserve, Horizons undertakes the control of invasive weeds and animals that threaten indigenous biological diversity. This project covers a range of activities that, together, inform decision-making regarding the control of pest plant

and animals, and the biodiversity outcomes that accrue.

10.2.7 During the reporting period, work continued on the analysis and reporting of bird monitoring results. The report is in the final stages of preparation.

10.2.8 Horizons has recently been asked to contribute the Totara Reserve monitoring data to a large-

scale (national) analyses and modelling of biodiversity and pest monitoring data (published and AnnexA unpublished) to quantify the effects of different pest control regimes on NZ’s native flora and fauna. The data will be analysed by Dr Rachelle Binny, a postdoc fellow at Landcare Research (Lincoln), working with Andrea Byrom (Landcare, Lincoln), Roger Pech (Landcare, Lincoln), John Innes (Landcare, Hamilton) and Alex James (University of Canterbury). The goal of Dr Binny’s two year project is to assess the impacts of mammalian pest control on native biodiversity in New Zealand. She hopes to incorporate data from marine islands, sanctuaries (fenced and unfenced), and regions where large-scale aerial or ground-based control is conducted, to allow us to measure ecosystem-level outcomes of pest control at a national scale. This data request will be served in June once the last of the rat monitoring data have been loaded.

Pest Management Support:

Horizons prepares pest management plans for managing pest plant and animal threats to the Region’s productive capacity and living heritage. Largely drafted during 2014-16, Horizons’ new Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and Regional Biosecurity Strategy and Programmes (BSP) documents are proposed to replace existing pest management strategic documents.

10.2.9 During the reporting period, Science staff provided input to the coordination of hearings on 5 and 6 April 2016, and contributed to the preparation of the staff recommendations for the Council deliberation on 14 June 2016.

10.2.10 Work on the literature review of the effect of feral goats on soil erosion and soil conservation programmes is complete. This research was undertaken by Dr Phil Cowan of Landcare Research under a small ($5k) Envirolink grant. Dr Cowan reports that it is difficult to separate the effects of goats on vegetation from those of other browsing mammals and thus their contribution to erosion. Despite this, data from New Zealand and elsewhere suggest that goat control has benefits for soil retention and local scale erosion control provided goat numbers are suppressed sufficiently and for

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 111

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

long enough to allow vegetation recovery. At broad scale, the relationship between goat browse indices and goat faecal pellet counts suggests goats need to be controlled to levels where kill rates were about or below one goat per day (which requires up to three hunting days per 100ha per year in podocarp / hardwood forest). No studies in New Zealand appear to have specifically addressed the benefits of goat control for preventing or mitigating erosion but Dr Cowan concludes that it is Item 8 Item expected that reduction in goat densities incurs benefits for soil retention and decreased local erosion. With regard to biodiversity impacts, Dr Cowan concluded controlling goats to reduce unwanted impacts on native vegetation is sufficient justification in itself.

Biodiversity information requests:

The objective of this project is to provide support, information and advice – over and above formal contribution to the resource consenting and compliance technical assessments – to other staff, the public, and individuals seeking to undertake activities that may trigger the One Plan biodiversity rules or biodiversity restoration works.

10.2.11 Staff provided information and advice to the public and potential consent applicants 11 times during the reporting period.

10.3 Monitoring Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Rat and mustelid  All 2015-2016 monitoring is complete and data are being monitoring loaded. Totara Reserve outcome  Monitoring for 2015-16 has completed and data are being

AnnexA Bird monitoring assessed. Report in prep. Lake wetland  Field survey complete and data analysed against Dr margin Singer’s recommendations. Report in prep. assessment Swamp wetland  Trials of the assessment method have been completed and assessment 26 wetlands have been surveyed. Forest fragments and “Top 200” bush wetlands remnants  12 bush remnants have been visited to test the recently monitoring developed “Top 200” bush remnants monitoring protocol. development “Top 100” wetlands  Workshop with Dr Clarkson complete. Workshop report in monitoring prep. development  The biodiversity working group has met to discuss the Biodiversity progression of the implementation of the three “easy” indicators Regionally consistent indicators. biodiversity monitoring  The Biodata Services Stack Steering Team has met to and information sharing Biodata Services discuss the advancement of integrated biodiversity data Stack management nationally, including a business case for funding the New Zealand Organisms Register.  Formal information requests, which result in a letter with Provide disclaimer, are being served at a rate of approximately one information per month. Information requests Undertake RMA  Advice being delivered as required. advice site visits One Plan  Provision of pre-consent advice to potential applicants implementation continues.

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 112

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date

 Preparation for the public submissions and hearing has RPMP been undertaken. Pest management  Staff presented BSS weeds work at NETS.

support Pest management Item 8 Item advice  Envirolink project for feral goat impacts on soil erosion is complete.  Staff have met with Waikato University and NIWA staff and workshopped the prioritisation of lakes implementation and Coastal lakes Alignment of work research work. prioritisation on lakes.  A report on the review project (Envirolink funded) is expected in June and is likely to include the scoping of a regional lake strategy report.

James Lambie SCIENCE COORDINATOR

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

AnnexA

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 113

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 114

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 115

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 116

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 117

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 118

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 119

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 120

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 121

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 122

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 123

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 8 Item

AnnexB

Freshwater & Science Progress Report Page 124

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-133 Information Only - No Decision Required

FRESHWATER OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-17 9 Item

1. PURPOSE 1.1. This item is to present to Members’ the draft Freshwater Operational Plan for 2016-17 and seek Councils endorsement of this plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-133 and Annex. b. recommends that Council formally adopt and release the 2016-17 Operational Plan as described in this item.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There are no financial impacts associated with this item. The Operational Plan reflects previously endorsed budgets approved as part of Council’s annual planning and long term planning processes. The Operational Plan also refers to budgets for freshwater implementation work sourced from external agencies eg. The Freshwater Clean-up Fund for Lake Horowhenua and the Te Mana O Te Wai fund work which includes funding from central government that is administer by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE). Further external funding via the Nga Whenua Rahui programme administered by the Department of Conservation is also mentioned.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. The community have had the opportunity to comment on budgetary aspects of the Operational Plan referred to in this item as part of the engagement and submissions run during the long term planning processes. The plan will be made available to the community via Council’s website once it has been formally released.

5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with this item.

6. DISCUSSION 6.1. The Freshwater Operational Plan for 2016-17 includes a range of freshwater implementation work that is a continuation of efforts made in previous years. The Operational Plan outlines the continuation of the regional freshwater grants programme to improve water quality and aquatic habitat. This includes work on focus catchments and work via environmental grants. The Operational Plan includes work as a part of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord, the Lake Horowhenua Accord including the associated Clean-Up Fund and Te Mana O Te Wai projects. 7. The notable changes to the programme in 2016-17 include the Manawatu Freshwater Clean-Up Fund no longer being a part of the programme. The Manawatu Clean-Up Fund

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 125

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

programme was closed in June 2016 following four years of targeted works to improve water quality and aquatic health in the catchment and an investment of over 46 million dollars.

8. A further change in the 2016-17 freshwater programme is an increased funding level of the Item 9 Item Lake Horowhenua restoration projects. At the time of the drafting of this Operational Plan the resource consent appeal process for the Lake Horowhenua restoration consents is ongoing with the Environment Court process likely to close in June 2016. The Annual Plan target for the project is to obtain the resources consents. If these are obtained the remaining funding will be diverted to implementation of lake restoration consents which include lake weed harvesting (including establishment of a boat ramp/boat ramps), installation of a sediment trap and installation of a fish pass over the weir.

9. SIGNIFICANCE 9.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

ANNEXES A Freshwater Operational Plan

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 126

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

9 Item

Freshwater Team Operational Plan 2016-17

AnnexA

July 2016

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 127

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

Endorsed by Council at the Environment Committee meeting on xxx

Authors Jon Roygard Group Manager, Natural Resources and Partnerships

Clare Ridler Freshwater Coordinator

Lucy Ferguson Freshwater Coordinator

Maps Manas Chakraborty

Research Associate AnnexA

Front Cover Photos Horizons Regional Council

July 2016 Report No: 2015/EXT/1487 ISBN: 978-1-927259-56-6

CONTACT 24 hr Freephone 0508 800 800 [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz

Kairanga Cnr Rongotea and Levin Kairanga-Bunnythorpe 11 Bruce Road Roads Palmerston North Palmerston North 11-15 Victoria Avenue Taihape SERVICE REGIONAL DEPOTS Torere Road CENTRES HOUSES Marton Wanganui Ohotu Hammond Street 181 Guyton Street Woodville Taumarunui 116 Vogel Street 34 Maata Street

POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 F 06 9522 929 ADDRESS

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 128

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Executive Summary

The Water Quality and Quantity Activity of Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) Long-term Plan

(LTP) has two main components: 9 Item 1. The implementation work to address water quality, e.g. physical works to improve water quality such as fencing and planting of stream margins; and 2. Monitoring and research to track the state and trends of water quality, inform policy and non- regulatory programme development and to assess the effectiveness of work programmes and policies to manage water quality. This report, the “Freshwater Team Operational Plan”, overviews Horizons’ work programme for the implementation works to address water quality issues during the 2016-17 financial year. A separate report the “Science Team Operational Plan” outlines the work programme for the monitoring and research component of the Water Quality and Quantity Activity. The Freshwater Team at Horizons is a small team that works closely with other Horizons teams and people external to the organisation to implement works for water quality improvement. This Freshwater Team Operational Plan document is arranged in five sections to provide further information on: 1. The Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord;

2. The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-up Fund projects; 3. Environmental and Freshwater Grants; 4. Advice, information and collaboration including Te Mana O Te Wai; and 5. Nga Whenua Rahui.

AnnexA These are briefly overviewed below, with more detail provided within the document.

Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord The Manawatu River Accord Clean-up Fund Project was completed in June 2016, and as such, the Freshwater team will focus and continue to deliver on Manawatu River Accord obligations as agreed to in the newly refreshed Manawatu River Leaders Forum Action Plan adopted in March 2016, for 2016-17 financial year. This is funded with $410,000 of targeted rate funding, as well as a carry forward from the 2015-16 financial year which has not been confirmed at the time of preparing this report. Planned implementation work includes more stream fencing, riparian planting, fish habitat enhancement and community projects. A community project funding round for projects has been completed to identify projects to be supported in 2016-17. The successful applicants are expected to be announced in June 2016.

Figure 1: Front covers of the refreshed Manawtu River Leaders’ Accord Action Plan that was launched in March 2016 and the Lake Horowhenua Accord Action Plan that was released in August 2014

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 129

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Lake Horowhenua Accord The Lake Horowhenua Accord was signed in August 2013 by five parties – Lake Horowhenua Trust, Horowhenua Lake Domain Board, Horowhenua District Council, Horizons Regional Council and the

Item 9 Item Department of Conservation. This project supports the Accord and delivery of the Action Plan (a work programme to deliver actions that arise from it). In February 2014 the Freshwater Clean-up Fund for Lake Horowhenua was announced and the project received $540,000 towards the restoration programme for the lake as part of a $1.270 million project. The balance of funding is from Local Government (Horizons and Horowhenua District Council) and in kind support from industry (Tararua Growers Association and DairyNZ). A wider work programme has been developed and is documented in the Lake Accord Action Plan that was released in August 2014. This was informed by available scientific information but will adapt as new information from the monitoring and science programme becomes available. A further project was announced in November 2015 to support restoration work to restore Lake Horowhenua. This Me Mana O Te Wai project draws $980,000 from Central Government and further funding from Horizons Regional Council, Horowhenua District Council and the Lake Horowhenua Trust to bring the full project budget to $1.2 million. This project is being led by the Lake Horowhenua Trust. The work programme over 2016-17 will focus on delivery of the Clean-up Fund and support of the Te Mana O Te Wai projects. At the time of the drafting of this Operational Plan the resource consent appeal process for the Lake Horowhenua restoration consents is ongoing with the Environment Court process likely to close in

June 2016. The Annual Plan target for the project is to obtain the resources consents. If these are obtained the remaining funding will be diverted to implementation of lake restoration consents which include lake weed harvesting (including establishment of a boat ramp/boat ramps), installation of a sediment trap and installation of a fish pass over the weir.

AnnexA Regional Environmental Grants and Freshwater Grants (Focus Catchment and Aquatic Habitat) The traditional aim of the freshwater programme is to support water quality improvement projects through the Regional Environmental Grant project. These projects are typically stream fencing or planting projects to provide stock exclusion from waterways and to reduce the volume of contaminants, such as nutrients and bacteria, reaching waterways. These projects are spread throughout the Region, arising as landowners, iwi or groups keen to do waterway improvement works contact the team. The Freshwater Grants for Focus Catchments and Aquatic Habitat are more proactive, being focused into certain geographical areas. ‘Focus Catchments’ are where a specific value of a waterway warrants extra effort to work with the landowners, in a non-regulatory capacity, to improve water quality and aquatic habitat. The Aquatic Habitat enhancement projects include a focus on continuing to deliver on the One Plan methods for protecting and enhancing water bodies that have been identified as Sites of Significance – Aquatic (SOS-A) or Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery sites (see Appendix 1 for more information on these methods). While both grant programmes primarily support landowners and groups with fencing and planting of riparian margins, they also include work to open up habitat for native fish through willow and weed removal and installing fish passes.

Advice, information and collaboration including Te Mana O Te Wai The Freshwater Team also provides advice to a large number of landowners, community groups, schools and iwi. Support is provided in a number of ways, including technical advice and by helping with project planning and management. Staff respond to requests as they come in as well as working proactively with a number of other councils, community groups and agencies. Team members work closely with other teams within Horizons providing advice and support. Other collaboration work during 2016-17 will include supporting the Te Mana O Te Wai projects in the Horizons Region. Horizons supported seven applications made to the Te Mana O Te Wai Fund in March 2015, however only one project has been announced as being successful to date. It is anticipated that there could be more successful projects or new applications supported in the Horizons Region over the 2016-17 year.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 130

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

The Te Kakapo Manawa o Muaūpoko being undertaken by the Lake Horowhenua Trustees is the only application to this fund which has been formally announced as being a successful. Support for the Te Kakapo Manawa o Muaūpoko Project from Horizons will be in-kind support through staff time and through financial assistance for the stream fencing and planting sub-project and the native fish restoration survey and report sub-project. Further information on the Te Kakapo Manawa 9 Item o Muaūpoko can be found in Section 4.5 of the Operational Plan. Horizons support for the Te Mana O Te Wai projects was sought from Council on 30th June 2015 and was approved.

The Freshwater Team continue to develop information brochures on various aspects of riparian

management which can be found on the Horizons website.

AnnexA

Figure 2: Examples of two information brochures that have been produced. The Freshwater programme will also continue to work collaboratively with a range of external individuals, groups and agencies. One focus of this work will be pursuing further collaborative projects drawing funding from a range of sources to support freshwater implementation work. One focus of this work will be observing a further development of the funding announced in 2016 Central Government budget that was identified for freshwater management work. Staff from the Freshwater Team also work with staff at District and City Councils and Department of Conservation staff within the region to provide relevant advice and support to assist projects where they improve water quality or awareness of water quality issues and solutions.

Nga Whenua Rahui The Freshwater Team is also completing work on contract to Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR), a fund that supports the protection of indigenous ecosystems on Maori land. The time for the Freshwater Team input to this project is paid for by NWR via a contract. This time is used to facilitate applications to the NWR funds, organise the implementation of works, and maintain contact and liaison with landowners and managers of sites within the Region.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 131

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Work Programme for 2016-17 This report provides a more detailed overview of these programmes, including the prioritisation of projects for the 2016-17 financial year. As well as delivering on the LTP targets, a key part of the Item 9 Item prioritisation has been linkages of the work programme with the One Plan. A key focus of the Freshwater Team for 2016-17 will be to draw on the scientific monitoring and knowledge of Horizons and other agencies to target implementation efforts. Work will continue to identify priority areas for protection such as key whitebait breeding grounds (inanga spawning sites). Another ongoing focus is to test the effectiveness of work such as testing fish passes for effectiveness and continuous improvement of methods.

AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 132

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 7

2 Manawatu River Accord 11 9 Item 1. 2.1 Overview 11 2. 2.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17 13 3. 2.3 Projects/Programme 13 4. 2.4 Project 1: Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum 14 3 The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Freshwater Clean-up Fund Projects 15 5. 3.1 Overview 15 6. 3.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17 17 7. 3.3 Project/Programme 17 8. 3.4 Project 1: Lake Horowhenua Accord support 17 9. 3.5 Project 2: Implementation of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund 17 10. 3.6 Project 3: Responsibilities under the Lake Accord Action Plan 20

4 Environmental and Freshwater Grants 21 11. 4.1 Overview 21 12. 4.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17 21

13. 4.3 Project/Programme 21 AnnexA 4.3.1 Project 1 Focus Catchments and Aquatic Habitat Enhancement 22 14. 4.4 Project 2: Regional Environmental Grant Projects 30 15. 4.5 Project 3: Advice, information and Collaboration – including Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) 31 5 Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR) 35 16. 5.1 Overview 35 17. 5.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17 35 18. 5.3 Project/Programme 35 19. 5.4 Project 1: Nga Whenua Rahui Support 36 6 Appendix 1 39

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 133

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 134

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

1 Introduction

The Water Quality and Quantity Activity of Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) Long- term Plan (LTP) has two main components: 9 Item 1. The implementation work to address water quality, e.g. physical works to improve water quality such as fencing and planting of stream margins; and 2. Monitoring and research to track the state and trends of water quality, inform policy and non-regulatory programme development and to assess the effectiveness of work programmes and policies to manage water quality. This report, the “Freshwater Team Operational Plan”, overviews Horizons’ work programme for the implementation works to address water quality issues during the 2016-17 financial year. A separate report, the “Science Team Operational Plan”, outlines the work programme for the monitoring and research component of the Water Quality and Quantity Activity. The Freshwater Team at Horizons is a small team that works closely with other Horizons’ teams and people external to the organisation to implement works for water quality improvement. This Freshwater Team Operational Plan document is arranged in five sections to provide further information on the work programmes for: 1. The Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord 2. The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Lake Horowhenua Freshwater Clean-up Fund; 3. Environmental Grants, Freshwater Grants (Focus Catchment and Aquatic Habitat Enhancement); 4. Advice, information and collaboration; and

5. Nga Whenua Rahui. AnnexA This report provides an overview of these programmes, including information on the prioritisation of projects for the 2016-17 financial year. A key part of that prioritisation has been linkages of the work programme with the One Plan. The work of the Freshwater Team has close alignment with several aspects of the One Plan, including a direct link with the objectives and policies around maintaining and enhancing water quality. The Freshwater Team’s work programme formally aligns to the non-regulatory methods of the One Plan. In many cases, the Freshwater Team has been working to achieve the goals of these methods for some time. The key non-regulatory methods of the One Plan to which the Freshwater Teams work is directly related to are: . Method 5-6 Lake Horowhenua and other Coastal Lakes; . Method 5-7 Lake Quality Research, Monitoring and Reporting; . Method 5-8 Trout and Native Fish Spawning habitat; . Method 5-9 Water Quality improvement; . Method 6-3 Sites of Significance – Aquatic; and . Method 6-4 Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery Sites – Biodiversity.

The Nga Whenua Rahui work also has linkages with: . Method 6-1 Wetlands – Biodiversity; and . Method 6-2 Bush Remnants – Biodiversity. Further details about these methods and the links to the work programme are provided in the chapters that follow and the full text of the methods is provided in Appendix 1.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 135

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

A key role for the Freshwater Team is providing specialist advice and assistance on freshwater matters, with staff responding to requests from landowners, iwi, district/city councils, community groups and schools. Non-financial support is provided in the form of advice, project planning and management.

Item 9 Item The programme also provides financial support for works to improve water quality and aquatic habitat in the Region. The works primarily involve the fencing-off of streams and planting of riparian margins, as well as work to restore in-stream habitat through removal of willows and installation of fish barrier remedies. The Freshwater Team works with a range of agencies to both co-fund and implement works. Often the programmes have criteria for the level of funding that can be provided to landowners as a part of a specific work programme. For example, the Manawatu River Accord programme has a co-funding level of 50% for stream fencing and planting projects. Likewise, the Regional Environmental Grant funding is typically 30% of works up to a total cost of works of $10,000; works outside this scope need to be approved by the Freshwater and Partnerships Manager or Group Manager Natural Resources and Partnerships. Map 1 shows the location of the Regional Freshwater Focus Catchments where co funding of up to 50% may be offered. For other work programmes, the contribution levels for works are governed by criteria that guide decision making on funding contributions. In developing the criteria used, the Freshwater Team has researched costs for different types of works to provide benchmark costs. More detailed information on the components of the Freshwater Team Operational Plan for

2016-17 is provided in the chapters that follow.

AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 136

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Map 1: Focus Catchments for Freshwater initiatives throughout the Region.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 137

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 138

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Manawatu River Accord

2.1 Overview 9 Item

Early in 2010 the Chairman of Horizons Regional Council invited key leaders with an interest in the Manawatu River to meet and discuss the state of the river. The leaders represented those sectors and groups that have an impact on or interest in the river, including local government, iwi, farming, industry and environmental groups. In August 2010 the members of the Manawatu River Leaders' Forum signed an Accord to take action to improve the state of the Manawatu River. The overall goal is to improve the Manawatu River, the mauri (life-force) of the Manawatu River Catchment, such that it sustains fish species and is suitable for contact recreation, in balance with the social, cultural and economic activities of the catchment community. This goal represents a community opportunity to develop leadership in catchment improvement and capture the social and economic benefits of such leadership. Specific goals set out in the Accord are: 1. The Manawatu River becomes a source of regional pride and mana;

2. Waterways in the Manawatu Catchment are safe, accessible, swimmable, and provide good recreation and food resources; 3. The Manawatu Catchment and waterways are returned to a healthy condition; and 4. Sustainable use of the land and water resources of the Manawatu Catchment

continues to underpin the economic prosperity of the Region. AnnexA One of the commitments set out in the Accord was to produce an Action Plan to be implemented by the forum and its respective organisations. Developing this Action Plan required a significant investment of time, energy, resources and collaboration from the forum members. The leaders identified six key priorities for the river: . Sediment; . Nutrients and bacteria from point source discharges; . Nutrients and pathogens from agricultural run-off; . Physical changes from flood control work; . Protection of native fish and birds; and . Management of water allocation. From these six priorities an Action Plan of more than 130 tasks was developed and in June 2011 the leaders launched their Action Plan to the community following the commitment to the Annual Plan the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum secured $5.2 million from Central Government towards the Manawatu Clean-Up Fund project. In March 2016 a new Action Plan was launched by the Minister for the Environment; Dr Nick Smith. This revised action plan aims to build on those efforts made in the previous five years by the signatories to the Accord, including work undertaken via the Ministry for the Environment’s Fresh Start for Freshwater Clean-up Fund. The six key priorities for the river, listed above, remain the same and the revised action plan includes 104 actions with task leaders and support partners identified along with reporting requirements and timeframes. This Action Plan will be reviewed in another five years in 2021. Since the signing of the Accord in 2010 three new parties have joined the Forum and are actively involved in collaborative efforts. This project was undertaken over four years and invested over $46 million into the clean-up of the Manawatu River. The Clean-Up Fund project drew funding from Tararua, Manawatu and Horowhenua District Councils, Horizons Regional Council and Dairy NZ. A range of other industry, iwi and community partners also contributed to the project. Horizons has a targeted rate for the Manawatu Acord work that has been rated since 2011. During the

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 139

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2012 year this funding has been incorporated into the Manawatu Clean-Up Fund. In the other years it has been used to fund additional work including stream fencing, riparian planting, fish habitat enhancement, fish barrier remediation and community projects. By March 2016 the combined efforts of the Clean-Up Fund and the targeted rate work had

completed; Item 9 Item . Over 330 km of stream fencing; . 120,000 riparian plants planted; . 98 Environmental Farm Plans on dairy farms to reduce the environmental footprint of farming; . 15 barriers to fish migration fixed or removed . 6 waste water treatment plant upgrades completed or in the process of being upgraded; and . 23 community involvement projects have received funding with a further 6 underway. To guide the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum in the development of a new Action Plan. a Science and Mātauranga Maori panel convened in March 2015 to look at the current state of the river and to summarise the key issues and solutions. The Panel was supportive of the work currently underway throughout the Manawatu Catchment and in many cases encouraged the continuation and acceleration of current actions and work programmes as well as ongoing extensive water quality monitoring programmes throughout the Manawatu

Catchment. Copies of the Joint Statement of the Science and Mātauranga Maori Advisory Panel are available on request.

AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 140

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Figure 1: Shows the journey of the Manawatu River leaders Forum and the Accord from the first meeting of stake holders in 2010 to the launch of the second action plan in March 2016.

More information on the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord, the Action Plan and the Freshwater Clean-up Fund project for the Manawatu can be found at the website www.ManawatuRiver.co.nz

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 141

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17

The long-term targets for the Manawatu River Accord $410,000 targeted rate for the 2016-

Item 9 Item 17 financial year are: 1. Stream fencing – target 45 km; 2. Community Involvement Projects – target 4 projects; and 3. Improve native fish habitat and fish passage – target 10 sites.

2.3 Projects/Programme

The Freshwater programme in the Manawatu Catchment is focused on delivering the long term plan targets and obligations Horizons has committed to through the Manawatu River Accord Action Plan 2016. Horizons has committed $410,000 of funding for freshwater initiatives this year. This funding will help to advance the goals of the Manawatu Accord; in the 2016-17 financial year, this funding is rated on a target rate basis to every ratepayer in the Manawatu Catchment. The table below gives further details on how this funding is proposed to be spent this year. There may be an underspend of budget in 2015-16 due to a dry autumn delaying some work. Any underspend will be reallocated for further freshwater initiatives within the Manawatu Catchment in the 2016-17 financial year in addition to the

$410,000 of targeted rate.

Table 1: Proposed expenditure for Manawatu River Accord work programme for 2016-17. Activity Service Level/Cost Total Expenditure

Stream fencing 45 km of riparian fencing $262,000 AnnexA Riparian planting 20,00 plants $58,000 Maintenance of priority planting sites Releasing of plants $10,000 Fish pass repairs 4 new fish passage fixes $20,000 Includes expert advice, willow removal, wetland Other Freshwater innovations $5,000 enhancement Advertising $5,000 Community Projects Assist in the completion of 4 new projects $50,000

The Manawatu Accord Community Grant Project will continue to engage iwi/hapu and the community with the River and its tributaries and help to advance the goals of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord. A new funding round for the 2016/17 financial year closed on the 13th May 2016 and the $50,000 of funding aims to support at least four community projects over a one year period concluding 30th June 2017. The successful applicants are to be notified in June 2016. In addition to the Freshwater initiatives undertaken as part of the annual targets of the Manawatu River Accord work, the Freshwater Team will also support iwi and hapu groups with their Te Mana O Te Wai Projects if they are successful.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 142

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2.4 Project 1: Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum

Objective: Facilitating the Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum. Context: The Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum typically meets twice a year. This project incorporates the time, a budget for initiating, holding and facilitating these meetings and the 9 Item reporting and collation of material for those meetings. The Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum last met in March 2016 at the release of the revised Action Plan. The next meeting is scheduled for later in 2016, traditionally around November. Deliverables/Targets: Two Manawatu River Leaders’ Forum Meetings held. Undertake actions committed to in the Manawatu Accord Action Plan over the five year life of the plan.

AnnexA

Photo1; Members of the Manawatū River Leaders Forum gather on the Dittmer Drive steps at the launch of the new Manawatū River Leaders Accord Acton Plan .

1

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 143

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 The Lake Horowhenua Accord and Freshwater Clean-up Fund Projects

Item 9 Item 3.1 Overview

Lake Horowhenua is a regionally significant lake that has been identified as being in poor health and having declining water quality. Horizons has a long history of working with various parties to improve the lake through initiatives such as the Lake Horowhenua and Hokio Stream Strategy and through Environmental Grant work. The lake has also been the focus of of science and monitoring work by Horizons, including commissioning and completing pieces of science work by NIWA in 2011 and 2012 around restoration options for the lake. In response to concerns about the condition of Lake Horowhenua, Horowhenua District Council has led the development of a Lake Horowhenua Accord. The key agencies involved in the Accord are: . Horowhenua District Council; . Lake Horowhenua Trustees; . Lake Domain Board;

. Department of Conservation; and . Horizons Regional Council. In August 2013 the five parties listed above signed the Lake Horowhenua Accord with the intent of providing leadership, halting the degradation and putting in place remedial measures on Lake Horowhenua and Hokio Stream that will ensure these taonga hold pride AnnexA of place in the Horowhenua community. The Lake Horowhenua Accord Document objectives are to: . Return Lake Horowhenua as a source of pride for all people of Horowhenua; . Enhance the social, recreational, cultural and environmental aspects of Lake Horowhenua in a fiscally responsible manner that will be acceptable to the community of Horowhenua; . Rehabilitate and protect the health of Lake Horowhenua for future generations; and . Consider how to respond to the key issues, management goals and fifteen guiding action points set out in the Accord document. On 25 February 2014 the Minister for the Environment announced the Fresh Start for Freshwater Clean-up Fund for Lake Horowhenua. The total project cost is $1,270,000 with the Government’s Freshwater Clean-up Fund contributing $540,000 and with local government (Horizons Regional Council and Horowhenua District Council) and in-kind support from industry (Tararua Growers Association and DairyNZ) making up the balance. The Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund will support a suite of eight projects which work towards achieving the goals of the Lake Accord, these projects are: 1. Lake weed harvesting; 2. Boat wash facility; 3. Riparian fencing and planting; 4. Urban stormwater treatment interventions; 5. Sediment trap and treatment wetland on the Arawhata Stream; 6. Integrated stormwater management plan for the Arawhata sub-catchment; 7. Sustainable milk production plans; and 8. Hokio Stream fish pass and habitat restoration.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 144

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

The Freshwater Team is working closely with other Horizons groups, including the River Management, Science and Strategy teams, as well as external agencies and the Lake Trustees to support the implementation of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund.

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Photo 1: Plantings from the community planting day held on 2 August 2015 adjacent to the Hokio Stream 10 months on.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 145

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Photo 2: Small fish ladder installed on the Patiki Stream, a main tributary to Lake Horowhenua. Since the Accord has been signed, the signatories have worked together to develop the Lake Horowhenua Action Plan, which outlines eight key issues affecting the lake and 15 management actions to address them, and identifies the roles and responsibilities of each signatory. The Lake Accord Action Plan was released in August 2014. Further work to restore Lake Horowhenua will be completed through the Te Mana O Te Wai fund project that was announced in November 2015 and started in May 2016. This is discussed further in subsequent sections of this report.

3.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17

The targets for the Lake Horowhenua Accord this year are to: 1. Environment Court process for consents completed; and 2. Produce one report on the lake weed harvesting operations. These targets will depend on whether Horizons is granted the appropriate consents for the weed harvesting operation to go ahead. An Environment Court hearing was held in May 2016 and the process has continued into June 2016. A decision on the lake restoration consents is expected later in 2016. The outcome of this process will determine the ability to undertake the construction of the Arawhata sediment trap, the fish pass on the Hokio Stream Weir and to undertake the lake weed harvesting operation.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 146

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3.3 Project/Programme

The project is arranged in three components: 1. Horizons’ involvement in the Lake Horowhenua Accord meetings (including technical input); 9 Item 2. Implementation of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund projects and reporting to MfE; and 3. Undertaking responsibilities under the Lake Horowhenua Action Plan and reporting on these.

3.4 Project 1: Lake Horowhenua Accord support

Objective: Assisting with the administration (technical support) of the Lake Horowhenua Accord and Clean-up Fund and participating in the meetings on behalf of the Regional Council. With the Lake Accord signed in August 2013 and the Clean-up Fund project having commenced in May 2014, this project has moved from the development stage to support and implementation. Accord meetings are held approximately every three months. This project encompasses the Freshwater Team’s time and costs associated with attendance at meetings, the work between meetings in support of the Accord that sits outside of the Science Team’s contribution and the two projects outlined below. Deliverables/Targets: Meetings of the Accord group attended as requested and advancing the achievement of the goals of the Accord.

3.5 Project 2: Implementation of the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund AnnexA

Objective: To implement the Horizons-led projects outlined in the Lake Horowhenua Fresh Start for Freshwater Clean-up Fund work programme and project plans, and to report on all projects to MfE. Context: The Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund work programme and project plan document was finalised in June 2014 and Horizons’ Freshwater Team is working alongside Horizons’ Science, Operations and Hydrology teams, as well as external agencies including the Tararua Growers Association, Dairy NZ, Horowhenua District Council, LandWISE and Lake Trustees to complete the eight projects within the timeframes of the Clean-up Fund. The Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund work is managed by contractual arrangements between Horizons Regional Council and the Ministry for the Environment. Formal reporting is completed by quarterly and annual reports with regular project meetings and at least bimonthly contact between MfE and the Horizons. The tables below outline the work programme, the milestones and budget for the Lake Horowhenua Clean-Up Fund. NB: this work programme is subject to change as the project progresses. Further details are available in the individual project plan documents. Progressing the sediment trap, fish pass and weed harvesting projects will be determined with the outcome of the Environment Court decisions. It is recognised that the milestones for the projects and projected end date for the project are expected to be revised following the decision of the Environment Court process. Further details of the projects and resource consent process are shown below.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 147

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 2: Overall work programme milestones – Year 2 (1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016) and Year 3 (1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016). Completion MFE Milestone name Activities Total cost

Item 9 Item date contribution

1.3 Operation of lake Obtain consents and operate equipment. a weed harvester 31-Dec-16 $0 $0 3.6 Community Undertake another community planting day (600 31-Dec-16 $3,000 $1,500 Planting plants). Undertake stream fencing, pre-plant spray and planting of appropriate natives (potentially including planting in-lake and at the Arawhata treatment 3.7. Stream fencing wetland). May include fish passage improvements and riparian planting and maintenance of fencing, plantings and fish 31-Dec-16 $17,640.08 $8,820.16 passes. Scope includes work to enhance the inflowing streams to the lake and the Hokio stream (and its tributary streams). Undertake stream fencing, pre-plant spray and planting of appropriate natives (potentially including planting in-lake and at the Arawhata treatment 3.8 Stream fencing wetland). May include fish passage improvements and riparian planting and maintenance of fencing, plantings and fish 31-Dec-16 $17,640.08 $8,820.16 passes. Scope includes work to enhance the inflowing streams to the lake and the Hokio stream (and its tributary streams). 4.1 Urban stormwater project Urban stormwater treatment design and b 31-Dec-16 $0 $0 design and consultation process completed. consultation 4.2 Urban stormwater project Urban stormwater treatment intervention works 31-Dec-16 $200,000 $50,000 design and completed. AnnexA implementation 5.2 Sediment trap Sediment trap and treatment wetland designed, design and regulatory permissions obtained and all works 31-Dec-16 $176,601.89 $88,300.94 implementation completed. Farm stormwater and sediment control plans developed through collaboration of consultant and 6.4 Cropping farm individual farmers. Initial implementation works management plans constructed. Aim: Plans completed for all key 31-Dec-16 $529.59 $267.20 and implementation growers (approximately 6) and 70% of cropped area. Initiate and complete stormwater and sediment 6.5 Implementation control plans on additional properties. $25,000 of farm plans Implementation support provided. Further 31-Dec-16 $39,666.00 implementation works constructed. 7.2 Sustainable milk 6 to 10 sustainable milk production plans completed production plans including farm soil mapping and effluent irrigator 31-Dec-15 $0c $0 completed testing. Design and construction of a fish pass at the Hokio 8.3 Fish pass and weir, site preparation, planting and associated costs 31-Dec-16 $29,563.30 $11,086.24 planting including maintenance of plantings. Total Year 2 & 3 $484,640.94 $193,794.70 aCosts for this milestone are being paid from Horizons Regional Council’s budgets (separate to the Clean-up Fund project). bCosts for this milestone are being paid from Horowhenua District Council’s budgets (separate to the Clean-up Fund project). cCosts for this milestone are being paid from Horizons Regional Council’s budgets (separate to the Clean-up Fund project). This milestone is to provide for the final formatting of the plans in the first quarter of year 2.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 148

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 3: Overall funding summary for the Freshwater Clean-up Fund package for Lake Horowhenua.

Project Project HRC HDC Industry MfE Total %Fund 1 Lake weed harvesting $125,000 $0 $125,000 $250,000 50.0%

2 Boat wash facility $0 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 50.0% Item 9 Item 3 Riparian fencing and planting $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 50.0% 4 Urban stormwater treatment interventions $150,000 $50,000 $200,000 25.0% Sediment trap and treatment wetland on 5 the Arawhata $175,000 $175,000 $350,000 50.0% Integrated stormwater plan for the 6 Arawhata $81,500 $104,000* $121,500 $307,000 39.6% 7 Sustainable milk production plans $15,000 $15,000* $13,500 $43,500 31.0% 8 Hokio fish pass and habitat restoration $25,000 $15,000 $40,000 37.5% All Total $451,500 $160,000 $119,000* $540,000 $1,270,500 42.5% *this include in-kind contributions from Tararua Growers Association for subproject 6 and in- kind contributions of DairyNZ to help with the production of the Environmental Farm Plans on dairy farms. Since the Lake Horowhenua Clean-up Fund started in May 2014, considerable progress has been made on all eight of the projects, particularly with background work into consent applications, landowner contact and collaboration. Horizons has also committed to increased funding for restoration work at Lake Horowhenua through its Long-term Plan.

Three of the eight projects – the boat wash, weed harvesting and sustainable milk plans – are complete from a financial perspective. The lake weed harvester, custom built trailer and land for the sediment trap have been purchased. The Arawhata stormwater project has progressed through work with horticultural growers. In total 368 ha of cropping land have been surveyed, including 41ha of land surveyed outside of the Arawhata Catchment but still within the Lake catchment. Drainage and erosion AnnexA management plans have been developed for all eight farms in the Arawhata sub-catchment. Horizons staff have surveyed the current drainage throughout the Arawhata sub-catchment and areas for improved drainage have been identified in consultation with the local growers. All sustainable milk plans for the 10 dairy farms within the Lake Horowhenua catchment have been completed. These plans have been presented to farmers and discussions have moved toward implementation of these plans. Since the Clean-up Fund started 1,108 metres of fencing and 3,096 plants have been established along Lake Horowhenua’s tributary streams and 2,759 plants have been established along the Hokio Stream. Three community planting days have also been held around the lake, with 1,600 plants being planted, including 600 in August 2015. Three signs have been installed around the lake to highlight the risk of invasive aquatic weeds to Lake Horowhenua and outlining the eight projects being undertaken to restore the lake through the Clean-up Fund. Resource consent was required for three of the eight projects to be implemented in addition to archeological assessments, for the construction of the Arawhata sediment trap, the fish pass, lake weed harvesting operation and installation of the boat ramps. A great deal of work was put into these applications which were publically notified on Horizons request in July 2015. Submissions closed on 20 August 2015 and a hearing occured in October 2015. All consent applications were approved for the three projects to proceed, however this decision was appealed. A considerable amount of consultation has occurred over the first six months of the 2015-16 financial year in preparation for the Environmental Court hearing which occurred over a four days starting 23rd May 2016. The decision from this hearing is pending. Designs for construction of the sediment trap, fish pass and boat ramps have been completed. A detailed weed harvesting strategy has also been completed. The work programme is subject to change over the course of the project. Several change requests have already been required, with the most recent changes lodged in August 2015. These changes are reflected in Table 2 which shows the revised work programme for Year 2 and 3 of the project including the extended timeframe to December 2015.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 149

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3.6 Project 3: Responsibilities under the Lake Accord Action Plan

Objective: To deliver on Horizons’ commitments to the Lake Accord Action Plan Context: The Lake Accord Action Plan was publically released in August 2014. The Item 9 Item Freshwater and Science Teams at Horizons had significant inputs into the development of that document. The commitments on behalf of Horizons do not sit solely with the Freshwater Team; however, this project provides the budget and time for the actions that do. As part of Horizons’ commitment to the Accord Action Plan there will be ongoing lake weed monitoring. This monitoring will provide crucial information on the seasonal growth patterns of lake weed and help develop annual harvesting plans once resource consents have been obtained. This project includes support to the Te Mana O Te Wai Project which has been awarded $971,660 from Central Governments Te Mana O Te Wai Fund and which Horizons is contributing $150,300. In addition to the monetary support from Horizons some staff time and technical advice will also support the Lake Trustees with this project. Further details of the Te Mana O Te Wai projects can be found in Section 4.5 of this Operational Plan. Deliverables/Targets: Many of the deliverables/targets relate to the Clean-up Fund work above. The Clean-up funding does not provide funding for staff time and this is delivered via this project of the Freshwater Operational Plan. The deliverables include other actions such as the contributions to monitoring including lake weed mapping, water quality monitoring and work to increase communications between members of the lake Accord.

AnnexA

Figure 3: Distribution and biomass of lake weed in summer 2014 (top), winter 2014 (middle) and spring 2014 (bottom).

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 150

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4 Environmental and Freshwater Grants

4.1 Overview 9 Item

This output is part of Horizons Regional Council’s non-regulatory response to water quality. The Environmental Grant and Freshwater Grant projects are a core component of the Freshwater Team’s work to support water quality improvement and to continue what has been a concerted effort over time to undertake this type of work. It involves primarily the fencing-off of streams and planting of riparian margins, and also covers the restoration of in- stream habitat through the clearance of willows and installation of fish barrier remedies. As part of completing this work, opportunities to work with other agencies to achieve water quality outcomes are actively sought. The first output is proactive engagement with landowners in Focus Catchments and undertaking aquatic habitat enhancement works at Sites of Significance – Aquatic (SoS-A) and Inanga Spawning areas (IS). The sections below provide a brief overview of the Focus Catchments and the reasons they have been identified for non-regulatory water improvement work. SoS-A and Inanga Spawning work focuses on delivering the One Plan methods 6-3 and 6-4 for protecting and enhancing inanga spawning and native fishery sites. The aquatic habitat enhancement work includes improving or opening up habitat for native

fish through willow clearance, fencing and planting (where necessary) riparian zones, and

installing fish passes at sites where passage to good habitat upstream is impeded. The budget for this work in 2016-17 financial year is $80,000. The second output is the traditional regional Environmental Grant work. These projects are typically stream fencing or planting projects to provide stock exclusion from waterways and to reduce contaminants, such as nutrients and bacteria, reaching waterways. These projects often result from enthusiastic landowners, iwi and community groups seeking advice and AnnexA assistance from Horizons staff, and projects tend to be spread throughout the Region. The budget for this work in 2016-17 is $80,000. The third output is providing advice, information and collaboration with others. Staff respond to a wide range of requests from landowners, community groups, schools, iwi, Councils and external agencies. Support is provided in the form of specialised advice, financial assistance where appropriate criteria are met, and project planning and management. Increased alignment of the non-regulatory work with the provisions of the One Plan has been one component of determining the work priorities for the Freshwater Operational Plan. The Focus Catchments for the non-regulatory work are in many cases the same as those identified in the regulatory programme, although this is not always the case. For clarity, the information below aims to identify if the Focus Catchments for non-regulatory work are also target catchments for the nutrient management regulations in the One Plan.

4.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17

The Long-term Plan targets for 2016-17 are: 1. Work with 25 individuals, community and iwi groups to improve waterways; and 2. Provide 20 Environmental Grants.

4.3 Project/Programme

This programme is delivered in three key parts: 1. Focus Catchments and Aquatic Habitat Enhancement; 2. Regional Environmental Grant; and 3. Advice, information and collaboration.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 151

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.3.1 Project 1 Focus Catchments and Aquatic Habitat Enhancement

The Focus Catchments have been selected as priorities for water quality implementation work for a range of reasons. The sections below provide some further information on the

current Focus Catchments, including the some background context as well information on Item 9 Item planned activity for the 2016-17 year. The identified Focus Catchments are: a. Manganui-o-te-Ao River; b. Hautapu River; c. Mowhanau Stream; d. Awarua Stream; e. Kaitoke Catchment; f. Waiwiri Stream; g. Ohau River; h. Waikawa River; i. Coastal Rangitikei; j. Porewa; as well as k. Aquatic Habitat Enhancement (Inanga spawning and native fish habitat).

Outputs: A key output is to have effective works funded in these catchments to protect and enhance water quality. To ensure effectiveness of works, the Freshwater Team will continue to work closely with the Science Team and others to understand the water quality issues in these areas and to identify which works will be effective in providing protection/enhancement. In addition, five of the SoS-A and Inanga Spawning sites listed in One Plan have been identified as priorities for enhancement.

AnnexA Project 1a: Manganui-o-te-Ao River Objective: To protect riparian margins of the river from stock in order to protect water quality and enhance whio (blue duck) habitat. Context: The Manganui-o-te-Ao River is highly regarded for its natural values and its trout fishery, which are recognised via a National Water Conservation Order. The river is within the Kia Wharite project area, where an extensive network of predator trapping is used along private land to protect whio (blue duck) in conjunction with DOC, iwi and landowners. While there is a relatively good proportion of remnant bush and riparian vegetation in the catchment compared to some parts of the Region, protection of water quality is vital to ensure erosion of the high values is stopped or reversed. This follows the philosophy of ‘protect the best’ streams/rivers. Some areas are impractical to fence so the focus is on those areas where stock regularly access the river. Additional funding to accelerate fencing of the main stem of the River has been granted from Whanganui River Enhancement Trust and Fish and Game, spread over the next three years.

Project 1b: Hautapu River Objective: To halt the decline in water quality within the catchment. Context: The Hautapu River is a highly-regarded river for its natural values and its upper reaches have previously been recognised via a Local Water Conservation Notice. Invertebrate communities at two monitoring sites in the catchment are showing declining trends. Work is continuing with the Science Team around water sampling to look into this further, with the aim of identifying key sub-catchments/areas where nutrients, sediment or bacteria are most elevated. The Freshwater Team will continue work with the recently formed Hautapu Catchment Care Group, iwi and landowners to identify practical solutions to prevent or mitigate contaminants reaching the river. Staff have had an initial Wananga with Ngati Tamakopiri, and will continue working with them as well as Ngati Rangi on a wider Restoration Plan for the catchment. .

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 152

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project 1c: Mowhanau Stream Objective: To reduce bacterial levels (measured by E. coli) in Mowhanau Stream. Context: Mowhanau Stream has high contact recreation value, providing freshwater

swimming opportunities for children from Wanganui and surrounding areas. The stream 9 Item flows into the sea at the very popular Mowhanau/Kai Iwi beach and is adjacent to a large playground and holiday camp. Horizons’ swimming spots monitoring programme had identified that the Mowhanau Stream (at the Mowhanau Bridge) frequently did not comply with the Ministry of Health contact recreation water quality guidelines. With the 2014-15 season as an exception, there had been an improving trend since 2009-10, likely due to the increase in cattle exclusion fencing that was undertaken over that time. The aim of the implementation work in this catchment is to fence the riparian margin to exclude stock, especially cattle, aiming to reduce summer E. coli levels. In conjunction with this, some of the lower reach of the stream is being fenced to improve inanga spawning habitat and

planting to create stream shading in some areas to improve native fish habitat.

AnnexA

Mowhanau stream sampling point

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 153

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

Mowhanau Stream swimming spot AnnexA In recent years faecal source tracking has been undertaken in the catchment and identified the predominant source of E. coli is from cattle, however some human sourced bacteria was also located indicating potential inputs from septic tanks and/or the sewage treatment plant (STP) in the catchment. Monitoring and investigation has identified some inflow of treated effluent from the STP and contact has been made with Whanganui District Council (WDC) to identify the issue. Over 2016-17 staff intend to monitor this potential source more rigorously.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 154

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Mowhanau Stream at Beach Footbridge 100%

90% Item 9 Item

80%

70%

60%

50%

risk Category risk - 40%

30%

20%

10% Percent in Health in Percent

0% 2004_05 2005_06 2006_07 2007_08 2008_09 2009_10 2010_11 2011_12 2012_13 2013_14 2014_15 2015_16 Graph 1: E. coli results in the Mowhanau Stream over the past 12 years using the ‘traffic light’ system: green is under the guideline E.coli limit for swimming; amber is within the alert level; and red where it is deemed risky for contact recreation.

Project 1d: Awarua Stream AnnexA Objective: To protect riparian margins of the stream from stock and replant in appropriate vegetation in order to protect water quality and enhance inanga spawning. Context: The Awarua Stream is a tributary of the Whanganui River, flowing from farmland between No. 2 Line and State Highway 3, then under State Highway 3 and Airport Road, before flowing into the Whanganui River near Corliss Island. It is a significant whitebait and eel fishery, and has high cultural values. The stream has been highly modified and is straightened into drains both above and alongside the State Highway with some diverted directly into the Whanganui River. The culverts at Airport Road and Nepia Road were perched and blocking native fish passage into what could be suitable habitat but in March 2014 remedies were put in place by Whanganui District Council and Whanganui River Enhancement Trust in conjunction with Horizons Freshwater and Science teams. Work to create more appropriate aquatic habitat both above and below the state highway continued last year, with a number of landowners completing fencing and planting, supported by Horizons. Improvements to fish passage alongside the State Highway were designed, and this year work will be undertaken with New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) to implement an appropriate solution.

Project 1e: Kaitoke Catchment Objective: To improve water quality in the Kaitoke Stream, thereby protecting the coastal dune lakes. Context: The Kaitoke catchment incorporates Lakes Pauri, Wiritoa, Kaitoke and Kohata, and forms a regionally and nationally significant dune lake complex. The lakes are used frequently for boating activities and also by schools as a training facility. During the summer months planktonic algae blooms occur in Lakes Pauri and Wiritoa. Algae blooms can be toxic to stock and humans and Horizons monitors these over the summer months through the swimming spots programme. The aim of this project is to complement the restoration of the lakes by protecting the wider catchment to limit nutrient, bacterial and sediment inputs to the lakes. This work has been underway for many years with fencing and planting of the lake margins and streams in the catchment. NIWA completed an EnviroLink funded report

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 155

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

looking at opportunities to improve water quality in the lakes in June 2013. This year’s work programme will continue with the implementation of catchment protection works as well as following up on some of the recommendations of the NIWA report in conjunction with landowners, other agencies and community groups. In addition, monitoring of Lakes Pauri and Wiritoa, which was started in 2013-14, will continue quarterly this year. This will provide Item 9 Item information on the nutrient, bacteria, sediment and E.coli levels as well as measuring clarity, chlorophyll and algal species. This catchment is also a target zone for the contaminant management rules of the One

Plan.

AnnexA

Photo 3: Lake Wiritoa in the Kaitoke Catchment – a popular recreational lake

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 156

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project 1f: Waiwiri Stream Objective: To enhance stream habitat. Context: The Waiwiri stream flows from Lake Papaitonga to the coast. The area has been a

Focus Catchment since prior to 2012-13 and has had fencing and riparian planting works 9 Item undertaken. The planting of predominately the north side of the stream, in tandem with the Horizons’ River Management programme, will provide some shading to the stream and therefore enhance habitat value. The main focus of work this financial year will be follow-up work on existing plantings. This catchment is also a target zone for the contaminant management rules of the One Plan.

Project 1g: Ohau Catchment Objective: To increase whitebait spawning and native fish habitat and lower bacterial levels. The Ohau River has been recognised as a Site of Significance - Aquatic. Context: The restoration of the Ohau Loop has been identified by local community groups as important. The aim of this project is to improve fish habitat in the loop. A new fish- friendly flood gate was installed at the mouth of the loop in February 2013 to allow fish passage during most of the year and shuts during high flows to protect against flooding.

Testing of bacterial levels in the Ohau River identified relatively high levels that appear to source back to the Kuku Stream. Any further monitoring will identify specific reaches for the Freshwater Team to focus on contacting landowners and encouraging cattle exclusion fencing.

Project 1h: Waikawa Stream AnnexA Objective: To improve native fish habitat and sedimentation controls in the Waikawa Stream. Context: The Waikawa Stream is a biodiversity ‘hot spot’ for native fish in the Horizons Region and the headwaters have SOS-A classification. Some instream barriers to fish passage have been removed, improving native fish migration. The stream is highly mobile, and the Operations Team has carried out some stream stabilising with willows and native trees, which will be beneficial for fish habitat. This project aims to undertake further riparian fencing and planting with key landowners to enhance native fish habitat. Recent testing of bacterial levels in the Waikawa River have identified high levels that appear to source back to the Manakau Stream. More detailed monitoring has identified specific reaches for the Freshwater Team to focus on contacting landowners and encouraging cattle fencing. This catchment is also a target zone for the contaminant management rules of the One Plan.

Project 1i: Coastal Rangitikei Objective: To improve native fish habitat within the lower Coastal Rangitikei catchments. Context: The coastal Rangitikei area has potential for providing fish habitat and is culturally significant. Further work in this area will be underway this coming year to map inanga spawning habitat and, if feasible, undertake improvements. The zone in the One Plan is a large area, so for the purpose of achieving our key objective we are focusing on the zone downstream of State Highway 3. A large planting project on the Makowhai stream within the Coastal Rangitikei is being undertaken in conjunction with Ngati Apa over June 2016, and more planting is planned for 2016-17. This catchment is also a target zone for the contaminant management rules of the One Plan.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 157

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project 1j: Porewa Stream Objective: To improve water quality and enhance stream habitat Context: The Porewa Stream flows from north of Hunterville and crosses State Highway 1

Item 9 Item numerous times before joining the Rangitikei River at Onepuhi. Some of the stream is within an Operations Scheme. The upper catchment has a number of Sustainable Land Use Initiative (SLUI) plans within it. The Freshwater Team will continue to focus on working with landowners south of State Highway 1. Any works undertaken will be in tandem with the Horizons River Management programme and will aim to remove cattle from the stream and replant where appropriate in order to provide some stream shading to enhance habitat value. This catchment is also a target zone for the contaminant management rules of the One Plan.

Project 1k: Aquatic Habitat Enhancement Objective: To support projects with aquatic habitat benefits in alignment with the One Plan methods. Context: This project continues the work to align the Freshwater Team’s work with the One Plan methods, in particular:

.Method 6-3 Sites of Significance – Aquatic

.Method 6-4 Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery Sites – Biodiversity

One Plan Method 6-3 Site of Significance – Aquatic (SOS-A)

AnnexA Context: This method seeks to protect and enhance water bodies and parts of water bodies that serve important roles in the lifecycle of the Region’s rare and threatened native fish. The method proposes that resources will be directed towards the most significant sites and the target is that the top 100 SOS-A are actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of the One Plan becoming operative. The SOS-A for the region are shown in Map 3. More than 150 sites have been identified through the technical work to inform the One Plan and further sites continue to be found that meet the criteria for the original definition of the sites. That definition was based on the recorded presence of one or more of the 10 aquatic species (nine fish species and the blue duck) that are considered regionally rare or threatened.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 158

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

Photo 4: A dwarf galaxid For the 2016-17 year this programme will prioritise these areas further, identify what enhancements will be beneficial and work with landowners to implement some works. The SOS-A sites cover large areas, in some cases including the main stem of the river from the

source to the sea, including the Waikawa and Ohau rivers. Given the scale of the SOS-A AnnexA sites, work to achieve the One Plan methods target will need to be completed over a long timeframe. Output: One output will be a mapping exercise of the SOS-A locations and the areas of historic and current works underway by Horizons. Further funding of works will be targeted to protection of SOS-A areas. One Plan Method 6-4 Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery Sites - Biodiversity This method seeks to protect and enhance water bodies (wetlands and streams) that serve an important role in the lifecycle of the inanga and whitebait, with resources directed to the most important sites. The method has a target of protecting and enhancing the top 30 inanga and whitebait spawning sites within 10 years of the plan becoming operative. There are overlaps between this method and the SOS-A method above in both the way the methods prescribe the work to be carried out and the sites that are being targeted. The method of working states that owners of land adjacent to water bodies will be provided advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, replacement of perched culverts and pest (plant and animal) control. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be undertaken. This method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of native fish and indigenous biological diversity.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 159

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA Photo 5: Inanga eggs found at Whirikino on the Manawatu River. The sites that are being targeted for protection and enhancement include the sites identified in the One Plan as inanga spawning sites (as shown in Map 2) and other whitebait spawning sites. Over the past four years, the focus has been on searching for inanga spawning zones during the key spawning period from April to June. Many previously unidentified areas were found (see Map 2), including three very large sites – the Whanganui River, Whirokino near Foxton and the Kai iwi Stream west of Wanganui. Works to protect these sites (fencing, planting, weed control) have been undertaken over the past two years and will continue this year. Further survey work for spawning sites will be undertaken this year. Five native species make up the whitebait catch: koaro, inanga, giant kokopu, short jaw kokopu and banded kokopu. These fish are some of the species encompassed in the definition of the SOS-A sites above. Output: One output will be extending the mapping exercise of the known inanga spawning locations and the areas of historic and current protection works being undertaken by Horizons. In addition, further works will be targeted towards protection of spawning areas.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 160

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Map 2: Locations of Focus Catchments (non-regulatory programme); Sites of Significance – Aquatic; and Inanga Spawning zones (as identified in the One Plan). The map also includes inanga spawning sites identified by the Science and Freshwater Teams over the last four years, shown in black.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 161

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.4 Project 2: Regional Environmental Grant Projects

Objective: To support projects with water quality benefits across the Region. Context: In Focus Catchments, SOS-A and inanga spawning areas, staff are proactive at Item 9 Item working with landowners and generally initiate contact. Outside of those catchments, water quality protection is still important and Horizons works with keen landowners to support them both with specialist advice and encouragement, as well as with Environmental Grants if the work being carried out meets grant criteria. Staff from other teams, such as the Land or Biodiversity teams, also put forward grant applications when the client does not have a farm plan and where the benefit is directly to water quality. This work tends to be relatively spread out across the Region. This enables the programme to reach across a wide range of sites, community groups and schools. Often, after one landowner undertakes projects, their neighbours or friends are more likely to seek advice to undertake similar projects – hence this project has tended to grow. Planting days tend to fall into this project with staff supporting projects where there is an educational and water quality benefit. This has high value in terms of demonstrating the programme to a wider audience.

AnnexA

Photo 6: An example of a 30% grant for native planting in a tributary of the Rangitikei catchment.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 162

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.5 Project 3: Advice, information and Collaboration – including Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW)

Objective: To work with individuals, community and iwi groups to improve waterways.

Context: Landowners, schools, iwi and community groups often call Horizons seeking 9 Item assistance with stream or wetland projects. Freshwater staff provide a free advisory service on aspects of improving waterways both for water quality and aquatic habitat. At times these projects do not qualify for Freshwater Grants, but the advice and logistical support are still very valuable to the individual, community or iwi group. This project aligns very closely with the One Plan Method 5-9 (Water Quality Improvement), which has the following targets: . All landowner requests for advice and assistance regarding water quality improvement are responded to promptly; . The targets of the Dairying and Clean Streams regional action plan for Manawatu- Whanganui Region are achieved by the due dates; and . Advice and assistance is offered to all landowners affected by the nutrient management rules. This area of work also includes providing guides and resources, both as Horizons publications and those in conjunction with some of our key partners. This year, as the

Horizons website is being upgraded, a particular focus for the team is to continue to update and/or develop topical information sheets and upload them to the website. This is an efficient way to provide non-property specific knowledge to people wanting to undertaking freshwater projects. While this can be helpful to increase awareness and knowledge of those using it, often projects require more site-specific advice which the team provides.

Advice is also offered to projects seeking Community Grant Funding (coordinated by the AnnexA Communications Team); providing specific technical advice to potential applicants and assistance with the logistics of completing projects for those approved. Staff frequently collaborate on projects across other areas within Horizons, providing technical input and assistance. This includes involvement in specific projects and technical advice to the river management, policy and regulatory teams. A number of projects are also undertaken in conjunction with the Communications Team to raise the profile of Horizons’ Freshwater work. Freshwater staff also work closely with many of our district and city councils as well as Department of Conservation staff, providing advice and ensuring collaborative projects are as effective as possible. Examples of this are the Treasured Natural Environment Group for the Rangitikei (led by iwi and community representatives but supported by Rangitikei District Council and Horizons), and the ‘Healthy Streams’ initative for urban Whanganui catchment streams (a collaboration with Whanganui District Council and Tupoho). Outputs: The individuals, groups or iwi contacts the Freshwater Team make are recorded in an Excel database and reported on in the Environment Committee report within the table below.

Table 4: Reporting on the Freshwater Team’s progress against some of the LTP targets. Reporting Period YTD Target % .Measure Actual 1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Work with individuals, community 25 groups, or iwi to improve waterways Environmental Grant applications 20 supported

This year there is again a large amount of work being proposed with iwi groups – in particular, work following the TMOTW funding applications made to the Ministry for the

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 163

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Environment in April 2015. The successful applicants were expected to be announced in September 2015 however only one project has been formally announced and that is Te Kakapa Manawa o Muaūpoko – The heart beat of Muaūpoko’ to be undertaken by the Lake Horowhenua Trustees.

Item 9 Item The Te Mana O Te Wai (TMOTW) Fund was announced in 2014 and has provided $5 million over two years. The concept of TMOTW reflects the recognition of freshwater as a natural resource whose health is integral to the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of communities. The purpose of the TMOTW Fund is to provide funding to enable Māori to improve the water quality of freshwater bodies (including lakes, rivers, streams, estuaries and lagoons) that are of importance to them by: . Supporting iwi/hapū to play an active part in improving the water quality of their local freshwater bodies; . Enabling iwi/hapū to actively participate in managing their local freshwater bodies; . Developing partnerships and working in collaboration with others; and . Assisting iwi/hapū and the wider community recognise the importance of freshwater in supporting a healthy ecosystem, including supporting human health. Horizons’ Freshwater Team supported seven applications made within the Region. The seven applications for which Horizons provided letters of support were for: . Nga Puna Rau Rangitikei project in the Rangitikei catchment – led by Nga Pae o Rangitikei; . Tokiahuru Stream riparian restoration project in the Ruapehu area – led by Ngāti Rangi; . Te Kaahui o Rauru waterways restoration project in the Kai Iwi, Okehu and Ototoka

AnnexA streams (Whanganui) – led by Te Kaahui o Rauru; . Awarua Stream wai restoration project (Whanganui) – led by Riri a Te Hori 2 trustees; . Tu te Manawa project in the Manawatu Catchment – led by Rangitāne o Tamaki nui a Rua Inc. on behalf of several iwi of the Manawatu catchment as part of the Manawatu River Leaders’ Accord; . Te Kakapa Manawa o Muaūpoko project to complement restoration work at Lake Horowhenua – led by the Lake Horowhenua Trust as a part of the Lake Horowhenua Accord, and . Ohau Loop restoration project in the Horowhenua – led by Dr Huhana Smith of Tahamata Incorporation. The TMOTW application process helped strengthen relationships between staff and iwi and hapu groups. It is anticipated that many of the projects will get underway over this period; the rate at which they are completed will depend on whether the Central Government funding is approved and, for some, on finding alternative sources of funding. Ngati Rangi continue to work on a project in the Upper Whangaehu catchment, focusing on fencing, planting and weed control within a number of the smaller tributaries to restore the Mauri of the waterways. Their TMOTW application for an extended project was unsuccessful however they have still made good progress on their original plan in collaboration with the Freshwater Team. Horizons assistance has included undertaking farmer/landowner liaison, pricing and sourcing fencing materials and native plants; advice regarding methods and logistics, and environmental grants towards some of the work. This work will continue in the 2016-17 year.

Te Mana O Te Wai ‘Te Kakapa Manawa o Muaūpoko – The heart beat of Muaūpoko’ is the first project to be formally announced by the Minister for the Environment in late 2015. The project has a total budget of $1,161,961 with a contribution from Central Government of $971,660. Horizons contribution is $150,500 with the difference being made up with contributions from

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 164

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Horowhenua District Council. Te Kakapa Manawa o Muaūpoko is led by the Lake Trust who have formed a Governance Group that includes representation from Horowhenua District Council and Horizons.

This TMOTW project includes a range of actions identified in the Action Plan. The project 9 Item has three key objectives. These are: 1. To enhance the ability of Mana whenua to actively exercise their kaitiakitanga to restore and protect the Lake and to grow direct community engagement and action in lake clean-up and protection activities; 2. To complete physical interventions to protect, clean-up and reduce impacts on our streams and Lake; and 3. To restore native fish populations as key indicators of Lake/catchment health and water quality enabling mana whenua to exercise their customary fishing rights. There are 13 main subprojects within this TMOTW project, these are identified in the table below.

Objective Projects 1. To enhance the 1. A community engagement programme including six community planting ability of Mana days establishing 4800 plants. whenua to actively exercise their 2. A Mana whenua engagement programme with six wānanga over the kaitiakitanga to two year programme to discuss the state of the water quality and fishery restore and protect and how these can be improved and how Iwi can be involved in that. the Lake and to grow direct 3. Develop a website, lake report card and publication to provide Iwi and community the community with information on Lake Horowhenua, its cultural

engagement and importance, water quality and fishery and the restoration programme. AnnexA action in lake clean- Establish signage at four key points in the catchment re the cultural up and protection significance of the Lake, water quality and fishery information, the activities. restoration programme and what people can do to assist.

4. To undertake assessment of the legacy of sediment and nutrient inputs from the sewage inputs to the Lake and options to address this as a response to the regular questions from Iwi and the community about how to address this issue and how much the various options cost.

5. Development and implementation of a comprehensive lake monitoring framework to capture cultural and scientific data and evidence of the health and wellbeing of the Lake and Lake water quality for the duration of the project and beyond.

6. To establish a nursery for production of plants for use in the ongoing programme to restore Lake Horowhenua and other areas around New Zealand.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 165

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Objective Projects 2. To complete 7. To trial in-lake planting as recommended by the Gibbs 2012 report over physical a small area of the lake to determine sources of plants, methodologies for interventions to planting and plant survival rates and outcomes.

Item 9 Item protect, clean-up and reduce impacts 8. To remove rubbish such as steel standards and wire from within the on our streams and Lake and to GPS locate and map pou in the Lake that should be left in the Lake. Lake.

9. To further protect the Lake from new invasive weed species entering and spreading through the Lake via constructing a Lake weed cordon around the boat ramp at the Domain and signage. Educating Iwi and the community about the risks of new weed entering the Lake through use of equipment such as boats, fishing gear etc.

10. Stormwater upgrades at three key inflows to the Lake (Makomako Road, Patiki Stream, and Mangaroa Stream) to screen rubbish and reduce the quantity of contaminants entering the Lake.

11. Stream fencing and planting of riparian areas and fish pass repairs in partnership with Horizons Regional Council over two years aiming to complete 5km of Fencing, planting 15000 plants and 3 fish pass repairs. This sub-project would be lead and managed by Horizons Regional Council.

3. To restore native 12. Survey of Lake and streams followed by a report that includes advice

fish populations as on how to best target restoration options to improve native fish populations key indicators of and reduce pest fish populations. Lake/catchment health and water 13. Capturing glass eels from the Hokio stream and growing them on in an quality enabling already established facility for repatriation to Lake Horowhenua to increase Mana whenua to the survival rate of these eels and assist restoring the tuna population of AnnexA exercise their Lake Horowhenua. customary fishing rights.

Horizons are involved with the following subprojects and are financially supporting subproject 11 and 12: . 3 – Lake report card; in kind support; . 4 – Lake bed sediment report; in-kind support; . 7 – In-lake planting trial; in kind support; . 11 – Fencing and planting; in kind and financial support; and . 12 – Native fish survey & report; in kind and financial support. Horizons will operate under contract conditions with The Lake Trustees for financial transactions to occur. For example fencing and planting projects around the Lake undertaken as part of subproject 11 with landowners will see the initial contributions of the fund be made to the land owner from Horizons and Horizons will then invoice The Lake Trustees for reimbursement from the Te Mana O Te Wai Fund. This process overcomes the issue of funds only being made to The Lake Trust after works have been completed and reported on.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 166

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5 Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR)

5.1 Overview 9 Item

Nga Whenua Rahui is a contestable Ministerial fund established in 1991 to provide funding for the protection of indigenous ecosystems on Maori land. Its scope covers the full range of natural diversity originally present in the landscape. The fund, administered by the Nga Whenua Rahui Committee and serviced by the Department of Conservation, receives an annual allocation of funds from Government. The Committee advises the Minister of Conservation on funding applications from iwi, the placing of kawenata (covenants) and negotiates conditions.

5.2 Long-term Plan Targets 2016-17

The Nga Whenua Rahui work undertaken by the Freshwater Team feeds into several LTP targets but does not have its own specific LTP target. This project fits within the following targets for the Water Quality and Quantity Activity and Living Heritage Activity: 1. Continue to work with individuals, community and iwi groups to improve waterways;

2. Additional Top 100 wetlands actively managed;

3. Additional Top 200 bush remnants actively managed; and 4. Continue to support existing community-based habitat and heritage improvement projects.

5.3 Project/Programme AnnexA

This project is completed in line with a contract between Horizons and Nga Whenua Rahui for Horizons to provide general project management support at different stages in the protection of areas of indigenous habitat (bush remnants and wetlands) on Maori owned land that has formally signed Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata/covenant of management agreement. The contract between Horizons and Nga Whenua Rahui covers up to 800 hours of work by a Freshwater and Science Team member. While there is scope for it to be 800 hours, unless there are a number of new projects going ahead it tends to be more like 400- 500 hours. The type of services may include: . Advising and arranging plant and animal pest control work; . Plotting and mapping of project works; . Negotiating fence line locations and standards; . Calculating quantity of materials required; . Arranging for fence lines to be cut by earthmoving machinery where required; . Sourcing fencing materials and organising delivery and planting of native plants; . Keeping control of expenses and payments; . Liaising with landowners over access and progress; . Updating Nga Whenua Rahui on progress with projects and finances; and . Monitoring Nga Whenua Rahui supported projects.

A map of Nga Whenua Rahui sites in the Region is provided in Map 3 below.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 167

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.4 Project 1: Nga Whenua Rahui Support

Objective: To support projects as outlined in the Nga Whenua Rahui/ Horizons Regional Council contract.

Item 9 Item Context: The Nga Whenua Rahui work fits well with several of the One Plan methods outlined in previous chapters of this Operational Plan, including: Water Quality advice; Coastal Lakes, Sites of Significance – Aquatic, and Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery sites methods. Furthermore, the project assists with delivering on policies and methods in the One Plan, including several aspects of the resource management issues of significance to hapu and iwi as identified in the One Plan. Two other key methods to which this work contributes are from the Biodiversity chapter of the One Plan: . Method 6-1 Wetlands – Biodiversity. This method’s target is that the Top 100 wetlands in the Region are actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of the One Plan becoming operative. . Method 6-2 Bush remnants – Biodiversity. This method’s target is that the Top 200 bush remnants in the Region are fully actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of the One Plan becoming operative. Full copies of the One Plan Methods 6-1 and 6-2 are provided in Appendix 1 of this report. In 2016-17 the key focus is on maintaining relationships and networks with the owners, trustees and farm managers to consolidate the work already progressed and to ensure plant

and animal pest work is continued. There are also several new projects which are at various stages in the process which should progress over this year. Any proposals take time through discussions to agree on the best area to retire and decide on a works plan; then an ecological survey is undertaken and formal proposal agreed and submitted, before being put through the NWR board and the Minister of Conservation for approval.

AnnexA Similar to the other Freshwater work, there are often a number of proposed projects that do not quite meet funding criteria, in which case advice is provided. Deliverables/Targets: As identified above this work project is about general project management for approximately 500 hours of work per year. Reporting of this work will be undertaken via the Environment Committee and by way of three reports per year to Nga Whenua Rahui.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 168

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 9 Item

AnnexA

Map 3: Locations of the Nga Whenua Rahui sites in Region showing existing kawenata (covenants).

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 169

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6 Appendix 1

This appendix provides the full wording of the One Plan methods referred to in this report as

Item 9 Item at October 2015. 

Method 5-2 Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades Description The aim of this method is to assist Territorial Authorities to seek central Government funding for sewage treatment plant upgrades, given that the plants make a significant contribution to contaminants to water bodies during low flows. The Regional Council will work with Territorial Authorities to analyse their treatment and disposal options and to develop a package to present to Government with the aim of securing capital works funding to reduce the environmental impact of these discharges.

Who Regional Council, Territorial Authorities, Ministry of Health, local health agencies (eg., MidCentral Health) and iwi authorities. Links to Policy This method implements Policies 5-2, 5-6, 5-9 and 5-11. Targets Central Government funding applications completed for upgrade of sewage treatment plants as required. 

Method 5-6 Lake Horowhenua and Other Coastal Lakes

AnnexA Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with all agencies to protect and enhance Lake Horowhenua and other coastal lakes. Landowners and other agencies will be provided with advice and project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, sediment control, wastewater/stormwater management and fertiliser application management. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method. The effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works in achieving improved water quality within Lake Horowhenua and other Coastal Lakes will be monitored. The method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of the lakes. The method will include utilising industry codes of practice as a means of enhancing and protecting water quality eg., the Code of Practice for Commercial Vegetable Growing in the Horizons Region. Who Regional Council, Territorial Authorities, Fish & Game New Zealand, Department of Conservation, iwi, Horticulture NZ, landowners and other agencies. Links to Policy This method implements Policy 5-7. Target The Lake is actively managed, including protection and enhancement measures, within 5 years of this Plan becoming operative.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 170

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Method 5-9 Water Quality Improvement Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with landowners to protect and enhance the water quality of the Region’s water bodies. Landowners in those Water Management Sub-zones* 9 Item where the nutrient management (non-point source discharge) control rules are to be introduced will receive the highest priority for assistance. This method represents an expansion of the Regional Council’s existing water quality improvement programme, which focuses almost entirely on dairy farmers as part of the Dairying and Clean Streams Regional Action Plan for Manawatu-Wanganui Region. Landowners will be provided with advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing and planting of riparian margins. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method. The effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be monitored. Who Regional Council, Dairy NZ, Fonterra, Horticulture NZ, Territorial Authorities and funding agencies including the He Tini Awa Trust and Nga Whenua Rahui. Links to Policy This method implements Policies 5-2, 5-4 and 5-8. Targets  The targets of the Dairying and Clean Streams Regional Action Plan for Manawatu-Wanganui Region are achieved by the due

dates. AnnexA  Advice and assistance is offered to all landowners affected by the nutrient management rules.  All landowner requests for advice and assistance regarding water quality improvement are responded to promptly.

Method 6-1 Wetlands - Biodiversity Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with landowners to protect and enhance priority wetlands throughout the Region. Resources will be directed towards the most significant sites*. Wetland owners will be provided advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, and pest (plant and animal) control. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method, and encourage the establishment of covenants. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be undertaken. This method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of wetlands and indigenous biological diversity. Who Regional Council, landowners, foresters, relevant consent holders, Federated Farmers, Territorial Authorities, Department of Conservation, hapū* and iwi*, non-government agencies including NZ Fish and Game, QEII Trust, NZ Wetland Trust, NZ Landcare Trust and relevant funding agencies including the He Tini Awa Trust, Biodiversity Condition Fund, Nga Whenua Rahui and Ducks Unlimited. Links to Policy This method implements Policy 6-3.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 171

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Method 6-1 Wetlands - Biodiversity Targets The top 100 wetlands in the Region are actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of this Plan becoming operative.

Item 9 Item Method 6-2 Bush Remnants - Biodiversity Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with landowners to protect and enhance priority bush remnants throughout the Region. Resources will be directed towards the most significant sites*. 1 Bush remnant owners will be provided with advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, and pest (plant and animal) control. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method, and encourage the establishment of covenants. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be undertaken. This method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of bush remnants and indigenous biological diversity. Who Regional Council, landowners, foresters, relevant consent holders, Federated Farmers, Territorial Authorities, Department of Conservation, hapū* and iwi*,

non-government agencies including QEII Trust and NZ Landcare Trust, and relevant funding agencies including the He Tini Awa Trust, Biodiversity Condition Fund and Nga Whenua Rahui. Links to Policy This method implements Policy 6-3. Targets The top 200 bush remnants in the Region are being actively managed,

AnnexA including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of this Plan becoming operative.

Method 6-3 Sites of Significance - Aquatic Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with landowners to protect and enhance water bodies and parts of water bodies that serve an important role in the lifecycle of the Region’s rare and threatened native fish. Resources will be directed towards the most significant sites*. Owners of land adjacent to water bodies will be provided advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, replacement of perched culverts and pest (plant and animal) control. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be undertaken. This method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of native fish and indigenous biological diversity. Who Regional Council, landowners, foresters, relevant consent holders, Federated Farmers, Territorial Authorities, Department of Conservation, hapū* and iwi* and funding agencies including the He Tini Awa Trust, Biodiversity Condition Fund and Nga Whenua Rahui. Links to Policy This method implements Policy 6-3. Targets The top 100 Sites of Significance - Aquatic are actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of this Plan becoming operative.

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 172

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Method 6-4 Inanga Spawning and Native Fishery Sites - Biodiversity Description The Regional Council and other agencies will work with landowners to protect and enhance water bodies and parts of water bodies (wetlands and streams) that serve an important role in the lifecycle of the inanga and whitebait* species. Resources will be directed towards the most significant sites*. 9 Item Owners of land adjacent to water bodies will be provided advice and financial/project management assistance to carry out enhancement and protection measures including fencing, planting, replacement of perched culverts and pest (plant and animal) control. The Regional Council will seek funding from third parties to assist with this method. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the protection and enhancement works will be undertaken. This method will include publicity to increase public awareness about the importance of native fish and indigenous biological diversity. Who Regional Council, landowners, foresters, relevant consent holders, Federated Farmers, Territorial Authorities, Department of Conservation, hapū* and iwi* and funding agencies including the He Tini Awa Trust, Biodiversity Condition Fund and Nga Whenua Rahui. Links to Policy This method implements Policy 6-3.

Targets The top 30 inanga spawning and native fishery sites* are actively managed, including protection or enhancement measures, within 10 years of this Plan becoming operative.

 AnnexA

Freshwater Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 173

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-134 Information Only - No Decision Required

BIOSECURITY & HABITAT PROTECTION PROGRESS REPORT 10 Item

1. PURPOSE 1.1. The purpose of this item is to introduce to members of Council’s Environment Committee, the Habitat Protection and Biosecurity progress reports for the period 1 April to 31 May 2016. 1.2. This item also summarises the key points and operational highlights contained within this report.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-134 and Annexes.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There is no financial impact associated with recommendations in this paper.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. This is a public item and therefore Council may deem this sufficient to inform the public.

5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS Habitat Protection (Biodiversity) 5.1. This report represents the penultimate period leading up to the end of the financial year. It has proven to be a busy period for the Living Heritage team regarding management of grants. Traditionally this period and the final period for the FY are the busiest for completing payments on grants. Throughout the year there have been some good outcomes on grants received by the team particularly regarding the playground build at Totara Reserve. This period saw the confirmation of a Project Crimson grant of 35k for planting work in another of our projects with the possibility of more in future years.

Biosecurity 5.2. This reporting period and the next traditionally see the conclusion of many projects for the year especially PCO operations. It is a busy time reviewing inputs, arranging monitors and approving payments to service providers. A lot of time has been dedicated to the Regional Pest Management Plan and the incursion response around Velvet Leaf. Although the work on these types of response is usually funded by MPI it places unplanned pressure on resources. This in turn generates extra work in sourcing cover for service provision to ensure the Annual Plan goals are met. It appears at this stage that the team have managed this well and a complete programme will be delivered.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 175

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6. SIGNIFICANCE 6.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Item 10 Item Bill Martyn MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & HABITAT PROTECTION Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

ANNEXES A Habitat Protection progress report B Animals progress report C Plants progress report

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 176

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item Biodiversity

1 Biodiversity Protection Programme

1.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

2 Reporting Period 4 Tar 6 % 1 Meas get ure 7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 11 5 3 Y st nd rd th th TD Actual 5 *1 New high priority wetlands 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 100% under active management *2

New high AnnexA priority wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA under partial management New high priority bush remnants 0 0 0 6 2 8 6 133% under active management *2 New high priority bush remnants 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA NA under partial management Environmental Grants 3 7 10 1 4 25 25 100% supported *2 Environmental Grants 0 2 1 1 5 9 25 36% completed (paid out)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 177

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

1.2 Targets - Life to Date Progress

13 Reporting Period 12 Meas 14 L 15 L 16 % ure 17 1 18 2 19 3 20 4 21 5 TD Actual TD Target

st nd rd th th Item 10 Item Total high priority wetlands under 0 0 0 1 2 59 3 100% active 59* management *2 Total high priority wetlands under 0 0 0 0 0 24 NA NA partial management Total high priority bush remnants 0 0 0 6 2 118 3 100% under active 118* management *2

Total high priority bush remnants 0 0 0 0 0 28 NA NA under partial management *1 Annual target AnnexA *2 AP/LTP targets *3 Life to date target

1.3 Activity Report

General:

1.3.1 The Biodiversity Team continued working with the Science Team on vegetation plot surveys in bush remnants, which will help the Council report on policy effectiveness and outcomes. Staff inspected actively and partially managed bush and wetland sites to check fencelines and ascertain the requirements for management input. The annual target for wetlands has been met and for bush remnants it has been exceeded. Both totals now match the life-to-date targets.

Community/private biodiversity:

1.3.3 Twenty-five biodiversity-related Environmental Grant and Biodiversity Support applications have been approved so far this year. Nine have been claimed on. This is not unusual as the majority of claims always come in the final month of the year.

High priority wetlands:

1.3.4 Two new high priority wetlands were added to the managed list during the March-May reporting period. They were Cooper Road Bog and Mangatu Bog, both in the Ruapehu District. The total number of high priority wetlands under active management is now 59 and the number of sites under partial management is 24.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 178

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

High priority bush remnants:

1.3.5 Two new bush remnants were added to the list of actively managed sites during this period. They were Cole’s Bush in the Manawatu District and Moxham’s Bush in the Horowhenua District. The total number of high priority bush remnants under active management is now 118 and the number

of sites under partial management is 28. 10 Item

Aaron Madden ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – BIODIVERSITY

Bill Martyn MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY

AnnexA

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 179

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Community Biodiversity

2.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress (% complete)

Item 10 Item 23 Reporting Period 24 Y 25 T 22 Measure 26 271 282 293 4th st nd rd th 5 TD Actual arget

Totara Reserve Regional Park Totara Reserve Regional Park (Manawatu) 10% 20% 25% 20% 20% 95% 100%

Collaboration Projects Manawatu Gorge (Palmerston North and 5% 20% 30% 20% 20% 95% 100% Tararua) Pukaha/Mt Bruce (Tararua) 15% 15% 20% 25% 20% 95% 100% Kia Wharite (Ruapehu) 15% 15% 25% 25% 15% 95% 100% Save Our River Trust (Horowhenua) 5% 20% 25% 30% 15% 95% 100% Manawatu Estuary (Horowhenua) 5% 20% 20% 30% 20% 95% 100%

Community Projects (10 supported)

Massey Hill (Palmerston North) 0% 20% 40% 25% 10% 95% 100% PN Weedbusters (Palmerston North and 5% 10% 50% 40% 10% 100% 100% Manawatu) Rangitikei Environment Group (Rangitikei) 5% 15% 35% 30% 15% 100% 100%

AnnexA Waitarere Beach (Horowhenua) 5% 10% 55% 15% 15% 100% 100% Bushy Park (Whanganui) 0% 20% 30% 30% 15% 95% 100% Tawata Mainland Island (Ruapehu) 10% 20% 25% 25% 15% 95% 100% Awahuri Forest Kitchener Park (Manawatu) 10% 20% 20% 30% 15% 95% 100% Moawhango Community Project (Rangitikei) 0% 30% 20% 30% 20% 100% 100% Turitea Reserve (Palmerston North ) 10% 20% 20% 30% 15% 95% 100% Te Potae o Awarua (Rangitikei) 0% 25% 40% 20% 15% 100% 100% Lower Kahuterawa Stream (Palmerston 10% 15% 20% 30% 15% 90% 100% North )

New community projects supported as resources permit

Gate Pa Bush Restoration (Manawatu) 0% 20% 20% 35% 25% 100% 100% Ohau Beach Walkway (Horowhenua) 0% 15% 20% 40% 25% 100% 100% Friends of Waitoetoe Park (Palmerston 20% 0% 30% 20% 30% 100% 100% North)

2.2 Activity Report (Community Projects)

Rangitikei Environment Group (Rangitikei):

2.2.1 The rural cluster group focus is growing rapidly with seven groups now involved. Horizons was asked to contribute an extra $15,000 over and above its annual $95,000 to assist one of the rural cluster groups working on the Otuareiawa Stream catchment. This was agreed to, as a trial project, but results won’t be evident until late spring.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 180

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

PN Weedbusters (Palmerston North and Manawatu):

2.2.2 Programme completed for the season. In all, 320 sites were treated. Old man’s beard seemed to keep growing for an extra six weeks or so thanks to the exceptionally warm conditions, along with

evening dews, experienced up until a few weeks ago. Item 10 Item Lower Kahuterawa Stream (Palmerston North):

2.2.3 Horizons staff were successful in securing additional $35,000 funding from Project Crimson for the coming planting season. The funding is part of a new project being launched by the Tindall Foundation using Project Crimson to deliver it, and 2016 is the trial year. The project will be reviewed in October and, if everyone is satisfied with the results, it will be extended for four more years.

Aaron Madden ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR – BIODIVERSITY

Bill Martyn MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY

AnnexA

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 181

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Collaboration Projects – Horizons / DOC

3.1 Activity Report (Collaboration projects)

Item 10 Item Kia Whārite (Ruapehu/ Whanganui):

3.1.1 Whio Security Site; twice-monthly checks of stoat and cat traps continued in the Manganui o te Ao section of the Whio Security Site over the last two months. Trap checks will revert to once a month during the winter months due to lower catch rates. Steady numbers of stoats and cats were caught in the traps, which is consistent with seasonal trends.

3.1.2 A goat cull was carried out by DOC staff on the Whanganui River trench prior to the Whanganui Journey Great Walk season finishing. 150 goats were culled, which is comparable to previous culls at this time of year. Another cull will be carried out prior to the Great Walk season beginning in October and hunts are scheduled for these times to avoid peak tourist periods and to target goats when they have not been under pressure from recreational hunters.

3.1.3 DOC staff provided support at an ANZAC ceremony held in the Mangapurua Valley. A monument was unveiled at the trig site, commemorating 100 years since the settlement of the surrounding valleys by returned servicemen. The service was attended by more than 150, including some of

the remaining people who were born in the Mangapurua Valley.

3.1.4 Whanganui and Tongariro staff assisted with marshalling and logistics for the two day M2C multisport adventure race. The race traverses 270 km from Turoa ski field on Mt Ruapehu to Castlecliff Beach. Whanganui DOC staff also entered a four person team in the event, named team ‘Kia Whārite’

AnnexA 3.1.5 Aerial spraying during April-May was concentrated on targeting Japanese honeysuckle in the Ihupuku Swamp and Japanese and Himalayan honeysuckle in the Mangapurua Valley. Ground contractors targeted woody weeds in the Mangapurua Valley during May, focusing efforts along the track and house sites.

3.1.6 Weed control at Gordon Park Scenic Reserve consisted of removal of populars, Jerusalem cherry, karaka and blackberry. Further access has been opened up through the reserve for the Friends of Gordon Park Group. Staff are assisting the Friends to establish a charitable trust which will enable them to seek funding for restoration projects at the Reserve.

3.1.7 A koi carp eradication was carried out in a private dam over April and May. The site is one of just a few known koi carp sites within the District. Koi were known to be breeding in this dam and there was a risk of them spreading through the movement of koi eggs via water birds. Koura and tuna were removed from the dam before pumping a large portion of the water out and treating the dam with rotenone toxin. Due to the fast breakdown of the toxin following initial treatment in April, a follow up treatment was carried out in late May to ensure the koi were all removed. The eradication was supported by landowners and iwi. The project was led by an approved contractor and assisted by local staff.

DOC Community Fund Updates in Whanganui area

3.1.8 Bushy Park has submitted its first six-monthly progress report to the DOC Community Fund. During this period good progress was made towards their project goals, with the highlight being completing the removal of bridging vegetation over the rodent fence by a qualified arborist. This work greatly reduces the risk of rodent incursion. Strong volunteer numbers are contributing more than 600 hours of work to Bushy Park each month.

3.1.9 DOC Community Fund Round three of the DOC Community Fund has opened and expressions of interest are due on 1 July. We are working to support strong applications from community groups across the region.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 182

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Manawatu Estuary

3.1.10 Work on spartina was completed March. Permanent and temporary staff have been utilised to undertake weed control of boneseed, sharp rush, pampas, Queensland poplar and a range of other isolated species focused on the sandspit area, following the Manawatu Estuary weed plan

recommendations. 10 Item

3.1.11 DOC, Horowhenua District Council (HDC) and Horizons staff are working through processes to reduce the build-up of logs and weeds on the spit.

Kiwi Guardians

3.1.12 The new collaboration between Toyota and DOC to develop an outreach programme for children has come to the Manawatu / Rangitikei area. The Tawa Loop section of the Manawatu Gorge was one of two sites chosen to host adventures where families could follow a map to find a special code and receive a medal via the DOC website. Two ranger- led events were run the April school holidays. This region has accounted for 30% of all Kiwi Guardian medal redemption across the country within two months of the programme going live.

Totara Reserve

3.1.13 The tender for Phase 2 of the Fern Walk upgrade (installation of two pedestrian bridges and a

number of boardwalks) is complete and a successful contractor has been chosen. Offsite work will

commence in June and onsite installation work will be completed in August.

3.1.14 The playground replacement will be completed in time for the opening of the camping season on Labour Weekend. Delays were a result of the difficulty securing enough external funding. Several funders have included the condition that the contractor undertaking the work must be one of those

who provided a quote for the funding application. AnnexA

3.1.15 At the end of March, more than $54,000 had been taken as income from the campgrounds, the Camp Rangi lease and the rental property. This is well above the expected figure of $30,000 and is largely attributable to all the fine, settled weather we enjoyed over summer.

Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge

3.1.16 Volunteer pest control for stoats has continued. Two bait fills using diphacinone for rats were completed in April. Possum control has been undertaken over the area fed for rat control while the Ballance end has received pre-feed ready for poisoning in late May. It is hoped that another bait station fill can be undertaken for rats in June, as abundant fruiting of tawa, mahoe and kahikatea caused rat numbers to rise at the end of April. Rat and possum monitoring will be undertaken post- control to assess current pest animal numbers.

3.1.17 Tararua District Council has provided additional funding to install another toilet and some BBQ facilities at Ferry Reserve. Both are welcome given the increased number of users that Ferry Reserve has attracted.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 183

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Pukaha

Mustelids

3.1.18 Two ferrets have now been caught close to the kiwi predation sites. Trapping for ferrets, stoats

Item 10 Item and weasels moved from a weekly rotation to the normal monthly rotation. Traps were baited with fresh rabbit and salmon spray lure was used sporadically. The graphs ‘Pukaha Mustelids Captures’ show a notable late spike in stoat numbers. Along with scheduled trapping the team has been focusing extra effort along all boundary lines. This involves placing extra DOC 250s and re- baiting weekly.

Kiwi management

3.1.19 Daily signal checks of all birds have been carried out along with extra telemetry training for DOC and Pukaha staff.

3.1.20 Bruce received a health check and new chick timer. Good health.

3.1.21 Four mortality signals detected. All birds predated by a ferret - RO51, MT Mate, Valentine, Mo.

3.1.22 One ferret caught next to MT mate and another within 100 metres of Val. Both were capable of

predating adult kiwi.

Mustelid Monitor

3.1.23 Cards lured with fresh rabbit meat were put out for three consecutive nights from April 19 – 22. No mustelids were tracked.

AnnexA Possum monitor

3.1.24 The monitor is complete but the wax tag analysis has not been done. The relative index of abundance of possums will be stated in the next board report.

Catch Tally Ferret Stoat Weasels Cats Rats Hedgehogs Rabbits HRC 1 3 1 27 35 54 1 DoC 4

Bill Martyn ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER – BIOSECURITY & BIODIVERSITY

Allanah Irvine DOC Operations Manager, Manawatu

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 184

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

Biosecurity Activity (Animals)

1 Possums (Possum Control Operations - PCOs)

1.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Maintenance PCOs (by 3 6 15 11 11 46 69 66% count) Initial operational areas (by - - 2 1 5 8 15 54%

count) Overall programme control 3 6 17 12 16 54 84 64% (by count) Control maintenance 157,938 75,620 147,567 106,467 145,799 633,391 725,687 87% operational areas (by area) 138,192

Control initial operational AnnexB 0 8,407 39,386 44,636 33,835 126,264 91% areas (by area) *1 116,000*1 Overall programme control 157,938 84,027 186,953 151,103 179,634 759,655 863,879 88% (by area) *1 AP/LTP targets

1.2 Activity Report

1.2.1 PCO operational work progressed well over the March-May 2016 reporting period with 88% of the programme now completed. Five initial and 11 maintenance operations were completed, with work underway in all remaining areas. We are on track to completing all programmed work by the end of June.

1.2.2 Landowner cooperation continued to be excellent with no major issues during the reporting period.

1.2.3 Planning work continued for the four initial operations scheduled for next year. Due to the rugged, inaccessible nature of the country in some of these blocks, we are likely to undertake aerial 1080 work for the first time in many years. Most of the landowners approached have been receptive to the idea of using this method of control.

1.2.4 We have undertaken a review of all of the operations in the PCO as part of the ‘2016-17 Pest Animal Operational Plan’ preparation. As an outcome of this process a ‘draft’ of next year’s programme has been prepared – refer Map 1.

Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 185

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

AnnexB

Map 1: Draft PCO 2016-2017 (Year 11)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 186

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Rooks

2.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress 10 Item

1 M2 Reporting Period 3 Y 4 T e TD 5 % arget a Actual s 11 12 13 6 u 7 1 8 2 93 104 5 str nd rd th th e a. Existing rook colonies (rookeries) 84 69 - - - 69 Record 0% b. New sites ------Record 0% Total rook colonies (rookeries) (a + b) 84 69 - - - 69 Record 0% Aerially treated rookeries *1 0 67 - - - 69 100% 97% Ground based rook control operations 0 0 2 2 - 2 -

Report ground control efficacy (% NA - 90% - - 90% 90% estimated kill)

Contract Ensure all contractual obligations are signed completed before annual rook control Yes - - - - Yes 100% with aerial programme begins provider

*1 AP/LTP targets AnnexB 2.2 Activity Report

2.2.1 No rook work was undertaken during the reporting period.

Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 187

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

AnnexB

Map 2: Rook distribution post control November 2015

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 188

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Amenity Pests

3.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

15 Reporting Period 16 Y 10 Item 17 T 14 Measure TD 18 % 19 201 212 223 234 5 arget st nd rd th th Actual Manage and record all amenity pest enquiries using Frontline corporate 88 164 203 140 92 687 Record 100% database *1 Respond to all enquiries within 48 hours of 88 164 203 140 92 687 100% 100% receipt *1 Close out or action all enquiries within 88 164 203 140 92 687 100% 100% 5 working days of receipt Report on all amenity pest enquiries Reported below *1 AP/LTP targets

3.2 Activity Report

3.2.1 A total of 92 enquiries were received during the March-May reporting period.

3.2.2 The highest percentage of enquiries were from landowners in the Manawatu District followed by the Wanganui and Tararua Districts.

3.2.3 All landowners making enquiries were contacted / visited within the prescribed timeframes and provided with advice, equipment (traps etc) or small amounts of toxins to help them deal with their AnnexB particular pest issue.

Pest Animal Enquiry Summary by Pest Type for Period March - May 2016 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Possums Mustelid Magpie Rabbit Rook Cat All Other This Year 22 20 2 12 4 18 14 Last Year 38 14 3 24 9 15 29

Graph 1: Pest Animal Enquiry Summary – by Pest Type

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 189

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Pest Animal Enquiry Summary by District for Period March - May 2016 35

Item 10 Item 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 Palmerston Horowhenu Manawatu Tararua Rangitikei Wanganui Ruapehu North a District 31 11 12 9 13 6 10

Graph 2: Pest Animal Enquiry Summary – by District

AnnexB

Photo 1: A possum caught in a ‘Timms’ kill trap. (R Wilman)

Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 190

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4 Monitoring

4.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

25 Reporting Period 26 Y 10 Item 27 T 24 Measure TD 28 % 29 301 312 323 334 5 arget st nd rd th th Actual Monitor agreed sample of ex-TBfree 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 40% PCOs Monitor agreed sample of new (initial) 0 0 5 3 0 8 14 57% PCOs RTC of sampled ex-TBfree PCOs *1 - - 2.5% - - - <5% RTC of sampled maintenance PCOs - - 5.9% 1.5% - - <10% *1 Rabbit nightcounts - - - - 1.49 5 11 45% *1 AP/LTP targets

4.2 Activity Report

4.2.1 Just under half of the rabbit night counts have been completed. Early results indicate that rabbit populations have risen by approximately 15% in the areas surveyed to date, an average increase from 1.29 rabbits per kilometre of line counted in 2011-12 to 1.49 rabbits per km this year. The overall result should be available in early June, when the last of the counts are completed.

4.2.2 Work is underway on the last of the Possum Control Operation monitors. AnnexB

34 Monitor results for the life of the Possum Control Operation 35 Average RTC results (June 2006 to January 2016) Ex-TBfree operations 5% target Initial operations 10% target 2.22% average (35 monitors) 4.21% average (51 monitors) Overall average 3.39% (86 monitors)

Eric Dodd ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME COORDINATOR (ANIMALS)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 191

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

AnnexB

Map 3: 2015-16 PCO monitoring map.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 192

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4.3 Biosecurity Activity (Animals) Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date .2015-16 operational work commenced .Tender process completed.

Operational implementation 10 Item .MOH permits obtained for 2015-16 Possum Control .Permits for the 2016-17 PCO are being prepared Operation Success indicators .Ten monitors completed

.Fifty six post-operational reports received Data management .GPS data uploaded into GIS database .2015-16 aerial programme completed. Aerial nest baiting .Some ground work attempted. Rook Management .Two ground operations successfully completed and Ground control two others attempted. Rook database .Reviewed and updated .Frontline database reviewed daily Respond to .Individual enquiries actioned enquiries/complaints within agreed timeframes. .Database updated regularly

.Environment Committee Report

Assist landowners with .Ongoing – advice provided as appropriate advice on appropriate pest .Loan trap and other equipment supplied Amenity Pest control techniques. Programme Initiate appropriate enforcement action against . No action required to date

land occupiers who do not AnnexB comply with strategy rules. Ensure that information on control methods for amenity . Ongoing (updated as required) pests is available on Horizons’ website. .2015-16 monitoring plan completed Possum Control Operation .Ten of 19 monitors completed Animal Pest Monitoring .Work is underway in the remaining monitors. Programme RPAMS (Regional Pest Animal Management .Rabbit night counts are underway. Strategy) Monitoring Report

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 193

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item Biosecurity Activity (Plants)

1 Zero Density/Containment Species

1.1 Activity Report

1.1.1 Species worked on during this reporting period include banana passionfruit, climbing spindleberry, old man’s beard, Pinus contorta.

Old Man’s Beard

1.1.2 We have finished the control season against old man’s beard for 2016. While the later part of the season was disrupted with velvetleaf survey and destroy work we have good support from contractors finishing off control work and the relatively late summer, mild autumn conditions allowed us to complete a full work programme. We again used all available tools to survey for and

destroy old man’s beard in the control zone. AnnexC 1.1.3 Of interest to the future programme has been the big influence of forests and forestry companies in the ease or otherwise of site management. Whanganui area sites have increased in number as recently harvested forests near the containment zone are highly vulnerable to invasion and subsequent establishment. We are also finding access is becoming more difficult due to harvesting operations placing restrictions across a forest. Though a relatively short time period in the life of a forest, some estates are harvested over a number of years as compartments come on stream, and the access issues mean survey and control operations take more time. This is compounded by our desire to get in early and find plants before they become mature and able to spread from the canopy height; something we may not be able to achieve without good access.

1.1.4 A couple of discoveries this year have really impressed upon staff how effective old man’s beard is at making the most of any situation. While looking for the root systems of two very large vine systems recently the staff member for Tararua was puzzled when a ground inspection revealed nothing. It wasn’t until he looked up and saw the vines had grown aerially, as an epiphyte, from within host trees!

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 194

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

Photo 1: Sub- canopy old man’s beard not seen from aerial survey, only found by field survey. (D.Alker)

AnnexC

Photo 2: Old man’s beard stem system existing without touching the ground, encased within a tree. (J.Keast)

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 195

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Pinus contorta

1.1.5 Control work continued against P. contorta through the Waiouru area and northern parts of the Control zone. Our work to protect significant areas of natural habitat drives the programme. These areas comprise crown land within the central plateau and also significant areas of vulnerable

Item 10 Item private land, from wetlands to fragile sub-alpine grasslands. The wetland complex at Raketapauma has mixed land tenure and has for some time been the focus of protection works from wilding conifers. Adjoining shelter trees and local isolated large coning trees have been felled in recent years and we are now down to mopping up the last of the progeny caused from this ‘seed rain’. However, it was quite a shock to see the internal recruitment from trees within the wetland itself, given the size and age of these trrees. Though spread would be slow given their size, it does impress upon us as managers that return periods need to be quite short to accommodate the very fast maturation of contorta within this environment. This season saw 3,038 trees controlled with

814 of them coning.

AnnexC

Photo 3 and Photo 4: The left image shows a Pinus contorta ‘tree’ with a mature cone at only 4 years old and less than one metre high. The right image shows similar trees dispersing through Raketapauma wetland area. (M.Matthewson)

1.1.6 Horizons staff organised the 33rd meeting of the Pinus contorta Coordinating Committee, now known as the Central North Island Wilding Conifer Group. The meeting was held in Taupo over May 18-19. Day one was an information exchange session with the various agencies updating all about their progress over the last two years (frequency of meeting), science input from SCION, who presented about the latest wilding research and chemical control, and MPI presented about the latest work at a national level that seeks to outwork the national WildingConifer Management Strategy. Day two included a field trip hosted by DOC and Hawkes Bay Regional Council to assess the challenges and success of wilding confier control in the upper Rangitaiki.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 196

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

Photo 5: Leith Rhynd from DOC Turangi, describing the success of protecting the Rangitaiki frost flats from conversion into a forest with the potential loss of a rare habitat and at least two unique to New Zealand species. (C.Davey)

Craig Davey Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 197

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Production Species

2.1 Activity Report

Item 10 Item 2.1.1 Complaints or enquiries were received about blackberry, broom and gorse. Species worked on during this period include woolly nightshade.

2.1.2 We had about a dozen boundary complaints over this period. Most were able to be resolved without the compliance process of legal notices. However, we did have to issue request to clear

notices in some instances and one outstanding boundary complaint was acted on.

AnnexC

Photo 6: Landowner RTC issue has been resolved with clearance being done. (D.Alker)

2.1.3 A longstanding matter in the Tararua District between an occupier of Maori land, Horizons, the neighbour, and the owners of the property is nearing resolution. The occupier, who is fighting eviction, is still involved in legal court processes. His eviction is in the Court of Appeal at the moment but we expect it will proceed without a hearing. This will hopefully lead to his removal from the land and then the parties involved can take the next steps in resolving the boundary matter. Te Tumu Paeroa have been good to deal throughout the considerable time this process has taken, and are equally if not more frustrated than we are over this matter.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 198

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Keep it clean

2.1.4 A staff member was working in forestry blocks at Ongarue and noticed a contractor from Rotorua was undertaking vegetation clearance with mowers. He was advised about

the tutsan he was mowing and without washing his 10 Item equipment he would more than likely spread that to the next location he mowed. The staff member suggested washing down his mower before leaving the block and going back to Rotorua, explained the threat tutsan posed and that he was not to knowingly spread tutsan. Once the contractor was aware of the situation he was happy to comply and let Horizons know when this was being done; which allowed us to audit and capture the process.

2.1.5 Staff also worked with Trevor James, AgResearch, on chemical and adjuvant trials against tutsan on a local farm.

AnnexC

Photo 7, Photo 8 and Photo 9: Washing down mowing equipment to prevent tutsan spreading from Ongarue to Rotorua and beyond. (D.Alker)

Craig Davey Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 199

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Biological Control

3.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Item 10 Item Reporting Period Measure YTD Actual 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Monitor and report on bio agent release sites 0 3 12 4 20 39 - sites inspected Monitor and report on bio agent release sites 0 - 13 6 19 - new releases/transfers

3.2 Activity Report

Field horsetail

3.2.1 The Rangitikei Horsetail Group has been successful in its application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the release of the field horsetail weevil to assist with field horsetail management in New Zealand. The group is now funding a breeding programme in the Christchurch containment facility of Landcare Research to hopefully have enough weevils mature

and ready for release in late spring or early summer.

AnnexC

Photo 10: Field horsetail weevil Grypus equiseti (Landcare Research) Tutsan

3.2.2 The Tutsan Action Group has been successful with its application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the release of the tutsan leaf and stem feeding moth and the leaf feeding beetle to assist with tutsan management in New Zealand. Nine years of commitment and persistence has paid off for the Taumarunui community and others involved in this project.

Buddleia

3.2.3 Buddleja weevils are still spreading rapidly across the region, moving through the Ruahines and reaching as Weber on their own. They are doing considerable damage, with many trees stripped completely, similar to what is being seen further North. This explosion has really only come this year, which is quite amazing.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 200

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

Photo 11: Buddleja leaves being stripped by larvae and also showing adults. (J.Keast)

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 201

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

AnnexC

Photo 12: Buddleia leaf weevil damage on the Tamaki Photo 13: Broom showing galls, Whanganui. (C.Davey) River, about 6 km as the crow flies from closest release site. (No, it hasn’t been sprayed). (J.Keast)

Broom gall mite

3.2.4 This time of the year is when we report through to Landcare Research the local results of those biocontrol agents flagged under the National Biocontrol Assessment project. The only species we currently report on is the broom gall mite. Others to come on stream shortly will be the Darwin’s barberry weevil, and tutsan and field horsetail agents among others.

3.2.5 We assess 11 of our 30 odd viable sites and now have two sites showing the presence of the broom gall mite. As can be seen in the image to the right, galls form on branches and have the effect of soaking up the plant’s resources into the gall as opposed to growth.

3.2.6 The images in figure 5 show the effect of the gall mite since release and this year when the galls were confirmed.

3.2.7 We expect the mites are having an influence on the broom prior to the galls becoming visible. We have every expectation that over the next couple of years the other sites we assess will begin to present galls.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 202

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

Photo 14 and Photo 15: Release site of broom gall mite April 2012, (left hand image). The ratty looking appearance 4 years and 1 month later, May 2016. (C.Davey)

Craig Davey

Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 203

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4 Non-rateable Land & Crown Agencies

4.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Item 10 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure Target % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual MOU/Liaison progress 1 4 2 3 10 12 60%

4.2 Activity Report

We liaise with the following agencies: LINZ, DOC, KiwiRail, NZ Defence Force, NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), Palmerston North City Council and Whanganui, Ruapehu, Rangitikei, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua district councils. We also meet annually with neighbouring regional councils to discuss boundary pest control issues.

4.2.1 We have met with various non-rateable and crown agencies over the last two months, particularly in relation to the Regional Pest Management Plan and implications for these entities.

Craig Davey Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 204

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5 Surveillance

5.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Reporting Period YTD 10 Item Measure % 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Survey and inspect all nurseries for National 0 - - - - 0 NA Pest Plant Accord (NPPA) listed weeds Report all discoveries and action taken Reported below Survey and record status of all known and new 26 - - - - 26 NA Surveillance species sites New sites 0 - - 11 2 0 NA Total sites 26 - - 37 39 39 NA Zero Density progress (cumulative sites at Zero 18 - - - - 46% Density)

5.2 Activity Report

Velvetleaf

5.2.1 Staff undertook a second inspection at the only Kyros 128 fodder beet paddock to not present with velvetleaf, and again confirmed absence of the invasive plant. We also inspected two previously infected properties for any late season bolting/presence and did not find any.

5.2.2 We were alerted to the presence of velvetleaf in the Tararua by DLF (the seed merchant that AnnexC supplied New Zealand with contaminated fodder beet) after they found plants while inspecting for yield assessment. This property was not known to Horizons, and through a trace back we have pinned it to a batch of seed sold out of Farmlands Dannevirke. Staff had investigated in March and received information to warrant closing out this batch. We now know Farmlands staff had taken it upon themselves to inspect this crop under their national office directions. This decision unfortunately resulted in three separate properties now being infested with velvetleaf. We found nine plants across two properties totalling 11 ha at Ormondville and a further plant 50 km away. This lone plant was found due to a contractor trace back identifying where the seed left in the drill after sowing at Ormondville travelled off farm and subsequently was sown in the headland of the next block, which happened to be a different line of fodder beet.

5.2.3 We have disposed of all collected plants and any collected seed not in boxes at Bonney Glen landfill.

Craig Davey Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 205

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 10 Item

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 206

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Map 1: Known locations of velvetleaf in our region as at end of May 2016; found in Kyros, Bangor and contaminated lines.

Item 10 Item

AnnexC

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 207

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6 Awareness & Promotion

6.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Item 10 Item Reporting Period YTD Measure 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Actual Report on all awareness and promotional activity *1 45 88 186 120 63 502 *1 AP/LTP targets

6.2 Activity Table

36 Activity 37 What Horowhenua Forest and Bird NPPA Talk,

Central North Island Wildling Conifer Group meeting held in Taupo on 18-19 Talks to groups May.

Field days Media articles Velvetleaf – Manawatu Standard

6.3 Activity report AnnexC Frontlines: April-May 2016

24 25 21

20 17

15

10

5 1 0 0 Production Zero-Density Freshwater Surveillance Non-Strategy

Graph 1: Pest plant enquiries - summary

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 208

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.3.1 The main topics of enquiry during this period were:

PRODUCTION Enquiry about green thistle beetle availability

ZERO-DENSITY Old man’s beard sightings Item 10 Item FRESHWATER No enquiries this period

SURVEILLANCE Field horsetail

NON-STRATEGY Arum lily, climbing dock, blue morning glory and black nightshade

Check Clean Dry Programme competition

6.3.2 Best yet. New initiatives. Highest number of people engaged with. National training.

AnnexC

6.3.3 The 2015-16 Check Clean Dry campaign in the Horizons Region was the most successful season in the programme’s history. This was achieved by building on the strategies and stakeholder engagement used for the past two seasons. Compared to last season, which up to then was the most successful to date, more people were seen at point of activity locations, with four times as many in the northern part of the region; new events were included in the programme and a new club that had never been previously involved in the programme was engaged. Almost all relevant clubs and organisations in the Horizons region have now been included in the programme in the last three seasons. The Massey Alpine Club remains the only known club in the region where despite attempts, engagement has not occurred. This season there was also new engagement with secondary schools in the Whanganui area, as well as maintaining links with key stakeholders, businesses and organisations. Signage is in place at all significant user sites in all waterways, though much will need replacing next season due to aging signage. Media coverage was achieved through newspaper articles, a radio interview and an email to all Hunting and Fishing email recipients (60,000) prior to the start of the trout fishing season, thus reaching a major proportion of New Zealand’s fishermen and hunters.

6.3.4 As for the last two seasons, the region was managed in two parts, northern and southern. The northern area, the Ruapehu District, was covered by a new advocate, Opae Steedman, from December to February. Andrew Watt provided advocacy for the rest of the season in that area. The southern part of the region (Rangitikei, Whanganui, Tararua, Manawatu, Horowhenua and Manawatu districts) was covered by Andrew Watt. Andrew and Opae worked semi-autonomously under the management of Craig Davey, Environmental Coordinator for Horizons Regional Council. Andrew’s experience and expertise was utilised to train Opae and plan a waterside advocacy strategy for the northern part of the region, which was implemented very successfully by Opae.

6.3.5 Having advocates based in different locations (Ashhurst and Taihape) meant again this large region could be effectively covered during the peak summer season by minimising travel time and costs. The ideal location for the northern advocate would be National Park/ Ohakune. Unfortunately no suitable candidate could be found in one of those locations this season.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 209

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.3.6 Running the programme over 12 months was again very successful as much of the club and stakeholder engagement occurred or was planned over the winter months. Many large clubs organise club meetings up to six months in advance so can never be effectively engaged by a summer-only advocate. Tourism operators are also more receptive during their winter season. Although they may be interested in promoting Check Clean Dry, they are often very busy during

Item 10 Item the traditional summer advocacy period and can be less receptive than they would be when they

are not so busy.

AnnexC

Photo 16: Questioning competitors, Ruapehu Express (A.Watt)

6.3.7 A focus on popular walking tracks and freedom campsites meant a huge fourfold increase in numbers engaged in the northern part of the region compared to last season, which to then had the most high risk users engaged by waterside advocacy.

6.3.8 The 2015-16 season aimed to build on the relationships established with clubs and other organisations over previous seasons, so they would adhere to Check Clean Dry and also spread the message and distribute collateral as part of what they do. As per last season, this was achieved by:

. Working with retailers, accommodation providers, manufacturers and i-Sites to promote Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral. . Create opportunities for stakeholders to take ownership of Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral and promote Check Clean Dry where possible. . Identify resources and train other individuals who would promote Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral, either while they are doing their outdoor activities or through their work (e.g. tourism operators).

6.3.9 This approach has generally been successful, though there was variation with levels of engagement across groups and organisations. This was expected when this strategy was formulated. Ongoing motivation was found to be an issue for some groups, businesses and individuals. Relationships and the promotion of the programme with stakeholders, groups and individuals cannot be taken for granted for those relationships to remain effective. Overall though,

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 210

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

resourcing groups and individuals to promote Check Clean Dry did extend the reach and effectiveness of the programme. On a number of occasions Andrew Watt came across risk users who had received collateral and Check Clean Dry information from stakeholders and groups like i- Sites and Fish and Game rangers. That showed the success of working with groups and individuals to promote the message in order to reach a wider audience than could be achieved by

advocates alone. 10 Item

6.3.10 Pukaha Mt Bruce continued to include Check Clean Dry as part of the daily tuna (eel) talk. Andrew Watt trained staff in how to present that message and they have plenty of cleaning collateral to distribute. This initiative exposed thousands of risk users to the Check Clean Dry message this season. A high quality collateral stand next to where the talk occurs will be implemented over the winter ready for next season, so that cleaning collateral is available straight after that talk.

6.3.11 This season saw 4,775 high risk users engaged by waterside advocacy, compared to 2,845 in 2014-15. That increase was almost all in the northern part of the region. Last season, 559 risk users were engaged in that area compared to 2,307 this season. Targeting non-traditional locations like popular tramping tracks and mountain biking locations that may not be near a waterway or have waterway crossings was very successful, especially the Ketetahi track end. These locations are used by an array of high risk users. People were very receptive to the Check Clean Dry message at these locations, even though they weren’t engaged in a water based activity at the time. Specifically targeted were locations where we thought foreign freedom

campers, trampers and other high risk users were likely to be.

6.3.12 Foreign freedom campers were targeted as the priority high risk user group this season. Locations specifically targeted for them were:

. Ohinepine Campsite (Ruapehu District)

. Waikawa Reserve (Horowhenua District) AnnexC . Woodville Ferry Reserve (Tararua District) . Tongariro Northern Crossing, Ketetahi and Mangatapopo track ends (Ruapehu District) . Mangahuia Campsite (Ruapehu District) . Mangawhero Campsite (Ruapehu District) . Manawatu Gorge Walk (Palmerston North District) . Woodville Campground (Tararua District).

6.3.13 All these sites proved to be great locations to engage high risk freedom campers. Often these locations weren’t popular with domestic campers and emptied out mid-morning and filled up in the late evening. This required a change from 8am-5pm advocacy to effectively engage them. There appeared to be a marked increase in foreign freedom campers this season. For example, the Woodville Ferry Reserve used to have two to four freedom campers their each morning two years ago, now that number is between 10 and 30.

6.3.14 The advocates felt that not only were more high risk users engaged this season through point of activity advocacy but that a higher percentage of high risk users were engaged. This was achieved by targeting locations where high risk users were likely to be and spending less time at some of the traditional campsites and swimming spots, where most people are very low risk to no risk of spreading pests as the annual camping trip to that location is the sum of their water based activity.

6.3.15 For the first time, a differentiation was made between high and low risk users when recording point of activity advocacy, although that information was not recorded during previous seasons. Anecdotally Andrew Watt ,who spoke with over 2,600 high risk users, felt that he was talking with a far higher proportion of high risk users, especially foreign freedom campers, than in previous seasons. This differentiation was made to give more meaning to engagement figures as we

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 211

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

aimed to engage high risk users. The type of high risk activity was also recorded to gauge the proportion of different user groups being engaged.

6.3.16 The number of events we attended or that were engaged in the Check Clean Dry programme was similar to last season, though more people were engaged though those events. Most events had

Item 10 Item Check Clean Dry information sent out to competitors before the event. There were pleasing rates of compliance at most events, with many competitors having already Check Clean Dried or knowing that a cleaning station would be there.

6.3.17 All event organisers worked with were fine to have advocates attend and provide Check Clean Dry resources and cleaning stations, but few have shown any initiative to do anything themselves. This is an ongoing challenge as events such as the Rangitikei River Race require no concessions, so there is little leverage that can be applied to event organisers to do Check Clean Dry for the event themselves. However, attending these events is a very effective way to engage high risk user group like multi-sporter,s who are difficult to find and engage otherwise. Attending events is still a very effective use of resources to reach these otherwise hard to reach risk groups like multi- sporters and anglers, as well as minimising risk of a pest incursion involved with the events.

6.3.18 Overall, there seems to be a trend that smaller local events are shrinking or disappearing while large professionally run events are holding their own or growing. Three small events attended in

the last few seasons now know longer run.

AnnexC

Photo 17: CCD advocacy works! Two French anglers about to fish the Manawatu River having checked and cleaned their equipment after reading about Check Clean Dry when they bought their fishing licences online. (A.Watt).

Craig Davey NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS COORDINATOR - PLANTS

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 212

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Biosecurity Activity (Plants) Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date Work with NC partners and other

stakeholders to: 10 Item Nature Central (NC) 1. Form plan Annual meeting held, maps produced, alignment Wilding Conifer 2. Activity planning and tracking with programmes achieved. Implementation Plan sheet 3. Annual meeting scheduled. Waimarino TNP Organise joint work programme Programme underway. We have good Darwin’s barberry alongside DOC. cooperation and alignment with DOC. control programme Decide on the best actions Beginning to disseminate best practice Yellow bristle grass Horizons can take to arrest the information to road managers. Topic of meeting (YBG) intervention spread and impact of YBG on the with NZTA. Staff assessed infected roadside investigation Region. management options in the Waikato. Rangitikei Horsetail Assist group financially and with EPA approves field horsetail weevil for release Group actions as required. into New Zealand. Assist group financially and with Tutsan Action Group EPA approves tutsan agents for release. actions as required.

1. Workable structure established

for Horizons staff to implement Horizons’ protocol for regional and national Agent assessment 2. Tutsan assessment sites assessment protocol commitments has been project established. established. 3. Other plants planned and criteria established.

.Relationship between parties AnnexC maintained. Annual meeting held in late September, collaborative approach to weed infestation Desert Road Invasive .MOU completed management occurring between parties. Work of Legume Control Group .Coordinated action in priority the various parties is progressing through the areas is undertaken against the spray season. target species. 1. Establish season plan Check, Clean, Dry 2. Establish register of (CCD) advocacy relationships to be managed to Programme wrapped for the year. programme enable wide community uptake of message.

Biosecurity & Habitat Protection Progress Report Page 213

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-135 Information Only - No Decision Required

BIODIVERSITY OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016-17 11 Item

1. PURPOSE 1.1. This item is to present to Members the draft Biodiversity Operational Plan for 2016-17. 1.2. Management are seeking endorsement of this plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-135 and Annex. b. recommends that Council formally adopt and release the 2016/17 Operational Plan as annexed to this item.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There are no financial impacts associated with this item. The operational plan reflects previously endorsed budgets approved as part of Council’s annual planning and long term planning processes.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. The community have had the opportunity to comment on budgetary aspects of the operational plans referred to in this item as part of the engagement and submissions run during the long term planning processes. Copies of these documents will be made available to the community via Council’s website as they are formally released.

5. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 5.1. There is no significant business risk associated with this item.

6. DISCUSSION 6.1. This operational plan is completed to explain the operative activity and annual outcomes sought by the Living Heritage Team. The outcomes pursued are set by the annual plan process and this report also details the resources available to achieve these annual targets. The plan discusses the individual programmes that make up the Living Heritage portfolio. Multi year projects are updated and implementation strategies are outlined for new projects. Where possible spatial information is provided by GIS informed maps and an inventory of individual sites.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 215

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7. SIGNIFICANCE 7.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Item 11 Item Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

ANNEXES A Biodiversity Operational Plan

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 216

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

11 Item

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17

AnnexA

June 2016

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 217

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

Endorsed by Council at the Environment Committee meeting on xxx

Author Bill Martyn – Manager Biosecurity & Biodiversity Aaron Madden – Biodiversity Coordinator

Front Cover Photos AnnexA Photo: (Aaron Madden, Horizons Regional Council)

June 2016 Report No: 2015/EXT/1485 ISBN: 978-1-927259-54-2

CONTACT 24 hr Freephone 0508 800 800 [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz

Kairanga Cnr Rongotea and Levin Kairanga-Bunnythorpe 11 Bruce Road Roads Palmerston North Palmerston North 11-15 Victoria Avenue Taihape SERVICE REGIONAL DEPOTS Torere Road CENTRES HOUSES Marton Wanganui Ohotu Hammond Street 181 Guyton Street Woodville Taumarunui 116 Vogel Street 34 Maata Street

POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 F 06 9522 929 ADDRESS

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 218

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

CONTENTS

1 Introduction 5

. 1.1 Background 5 Item 11 Item . 1.2 Explanation of Management Programmes 6 . 1.3 Purpose of the Operational Plan 7 2 Biodiversity Programme Information 9 . 2.1 Introduction 9 . 2.2 Labour Resource 10 3 Potential Labour Resource Issue 11 . 3.1 Staff Member on Fixed Term Contract 11 4 Progress to Date 13 5 Financial Overview 15 . 5.1 Financial ($1,579,010) 15 . 5.2 Priority sites - Bush Remnants and Wetlands ($546,622) 16

. 5.3 Totara Reserve Regional Park ($185,071) 17 . 5.4 Environmental Initiatives ($847,317) 20 . 5.5 Targeted Rates Reserves 23 6 Implementation of Programmes 24

. 6.1 Priority Sites - Bush Remnants and Wetlands 24 AnnexA 6.1.1 Introduction 24 6.1.2 Performance Measures for Priority sites – Wetland & Bush Remnants programme 24 . 6.2 Wetland location and Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) 26 . 6.3 Bush remnant location and Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) 27 . 6.4 Regional Parks 28 6.4.1 Introduction 28 6.4.2 Performance Measures 28 6.4.3 Planned Activity 29 . 6.5 Environmental Initiatives 29 6.5.1 Introduction 29 6.5.2 Performance Measures 30 6.5.3 Planned Activity 31 7 Reporting 33 . 7.1 Introduction 33 8 Appendix 1 – Bush Remnant Inventory as at 30 June 2016 34 9 Appendix 2 – Wetland Inventory as at 30 June 2016 38

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 219

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 220

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Item 11 Item

Changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) in 2003 greatly increased the obligations upon, and range of powers available to regional councils with respect to biodiversity management. Horizons Regional Council’s (Horizons) current obligations are set out in the following sections of the RMA: . s6(c) - “the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna” is a matter of national importance which the Regional Council must recognise and provide for. . s30(1)(ga) sets out one of the functions of the Regional Council as “the establishment, implementation and review of objectives, policies and methods for maintaining indigenous biological diversity”. . The maintenance of indigenous biological diversity is also a function of Territorial Authorities as set out in s30(1)(b)(iii). . s62(1) sets out that the Regional Policy Statement must state how this shared function

is to be apportioned between the Regional and Territorial Authority, that is which authority is to be responsible, in whole or in part, for maintaining indigenous biological diversity. A National Policy Statement (NPS) is an instrument available under the RMA to outline how issues of national importance should be managed. All local authorities are obligated to

implement an operative NPS. AnnexA In February 2011, the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) released a proposed NPS on Indigenous Biodiversity. This proposed NPS applies to private and Crown land with the exception of Public Conservation Land. The intention of the proposed NPS is to provide more clarity in regards to the role of local authorities in indigenous biodiversity management, provide guidance on what is to be considered significant indigenous vegetation or significant habitat of indigenous fauna, and provide a baseline which local authorities are required to reach. The proposed NPS does not intend to limit what local authorities can consider to be significant under s6(c) RMA, or to prevent local authorities from going further than the baselines provided in the proposed NPS. The proposed NPS captures the National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land2 that were released in 2007. The National Priorities have been identified as being: 1. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments3 that have 20% or less remaining indigenous cover. 2. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands.

2 Ministry for the Environment. 2007. Protecting our Places. Information about the Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land. Publication No. ME 805. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment. 2007. Protecting Our Places. Introducing the National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity on Private Land. Pamphlet Publication No. ME 799 . Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 3 Defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level IV. Leathwick, J.R., Wilson, G., Rutledge, D., Wardle, P., Morgan, F., Johnston, K., McLeod, M.,& Kirkpatrick, R. 2003. Land Environments of New Zealand. David Bateman, Auckland.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 221

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3. To protect indigenous vegetation associated with originally rare terrestrial ecosystem

types. 4. To protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened indigenous species. The proposed NPS underwent a public consultation phase, receiving 426 submissions from Item 11 Item a diverse range of individuals and organisations. This level of engagement in the proposed NPS reflects the high level of interest in how indigenous biodiversity on private land should be managed. No final decision has been made in response to these submissions as yet. Horizons developed the One Plan with careful consideration of these national priorities and therefore, the biodiversity provisions of the One Plan are closely aligned to those of the proposed NPS in regards overall intent, if differing slightly in application. In accordance with s62(1) RMA, the One Plan sets out the roles and responsibilities for the management of indigenous biodiversity. Where agreed with the territorial authorities within the Manawatu-Wanganui Region, Horizons has taken on the coordination role for the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity. Responsibilities have been apportioned as follows: 1. Horizons must be responsible for developing objectives, policies, methods for the purposes of establishing a region-wide approach for maintaining (and enhancing) indigenous biodiversity, and rules to project areas of significant indigenous vegetation

and significant habitat of indigenous fauna and to maintain (and enhance) indigenous

biodiversity. 2. Territorial authorities must be responsible for retaining schedules of notable and amenity trees in their district plans, and other measures to recognise the amenity, intrinsic and cultural values associated with indigenous biodiversity (but not for the

AnnexA purpose of protecting significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitat of indigenous fauna). 3. Both Horizons and the territorial authorities must, when making decisions on resource consent applications or outside the specific responsibilities of those allocated above, recognise matters described in s6(c) RMA and have particular regard to matters identified in s7(d) RMA. The objectives, policies and methods for managing indigenous biodiversity are set out in Chapter 7 of the One Plan. There are two principal methods by which the policies are implemented – regulatory methods and non-regulatory methods. Regulatory methods are delivered via plan rules which control activities that have the potential to have an adverse effect on areas of indigenous biodiversity. These rules are described in Chapter 12 of the One Plan. The non-regulatory approach includes all the voluntary methods by which Horizons assists landowners in the protection of indigenous biodiversity such as enhancement works (e.g. fencing and pest control). The two sets of methods are complementary and work together to ensure both biodiversity pattern and process are maintained across the landscape. This Operational Plan details how the non-regulatory methods of the One Plan will be implemented.

1.2 Explanation of Management Programmes

This Operational Plan outlines the nature and scope of activities Horizons Regional Council intends to undertake in the implementation of the Biodiversity programmes for the 2016-17 financial year. Performance measures and other targets by which performance can be judged by Council are identified.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 222

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

1.3 Purpose of the Operational Plan

The activities that make up the implementation component of the Biodiversity programmes are summarised as follows:

. Bush Remnants and Wetlands – seeks to have 200 high priority bush remnants and 11 Item 100 high priority wetlands under active management by the end of 2028-29. Active management means that the site is fenced to exclude stock, has pest plant and animal control programmes in place, and any necessary replanting is being done. This programme is in three parts: (1) the initial protection or active management investment (year 1); (2) the maintenance or follow-up programme of weed, pest or planting (year 2 onwards); and (3) an internal monitor and assessment programme. . Environmental Initiatives – covers biodiversity-related projects that extend beyond the property boundary of a single landowner and/or involve community groups or external agencies. The current suite of projects targets sites with environmental, recreational, social and cultural values. . Regional Parks – is the management of Totara Reserve Regional Park. It includes pest plant and animal control, and maintenance and development of recreational assets such as the camping facilities and the walking tracks. The river engineering work undertaken on the boundary of the Regional Park and its associated budget is managed by Horizons’ Operations Group.

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 223

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 224

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Biodiversity Programme Information

2.1 Introduction Item 11 Item In the One Plan, there are two principal methods by which the policies on Biodiversity are implemented – regulatory methods and non-regulatory methods. This Operational Plan is restricted to the implementation of the non-regulatory methods. The non-regulatory approach includes all the voluntary methods by which Horizons assists landowners in the protection of habitat such as enhancement works (e.g. fencing, planting and pest control). This Operational Plan reflects the key priorities for Biodiversity management established through the One Plan. The prioritised roles that Horizons Regional Council sees for itself include: Priority Sites (Bush Remnants and Wetlands programme) 1. Site assessment and management, which may include the formalised Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) and site selection processes of any new ‘sites’ entering the programme from time to time; and site management (active management), including organisation of fencing, planting and pest control.

2. Maintenance of sites supported by Horizons that have met qualification criteria established in step 1. 3. Site auditing and monitoring to gauge such things as effectiveness of pest control work, revegetation planting and the condition of fencing.

Community & Environmental Initiatives programme AnnexA 1. Support (funding and expertise) for a suite of established community biodiversity projects with an emphasis on community engagement projects and/or projects that leverage additional financial support. 2. Public liaison, including awareness and education programmes, developing community group initiatives and responding to complaints and enquiries from the public. 3. Support for Horizons’ regulatory queries regarding its One Plan rules relating to native biodiversity.

COMMUNITY PROJECTS & TOTARA RESERVE PRIORITY SITES ENVIRONMENTAL REGIONAL PARK INITIATIVES

ACTIVE REGULATORY & MAINTENANCE MONIROING & COMMUNITY NEW CAMPING & DAY MANAGEMENT & NON REGULATORY TOTARA RESERVE PROGRAMME AUDITING PROGRAMMES PROGRAMMES FACILITIES AASSESSMENT ADVICE & SUPPORT

Grants to support Maintenance Assess new sites. Kia Wharite New community Support for Operate seasonal Animal pests new wetlands & programme (pests Monitor progress Bushy Park programmes as community camping facility Plant pests bush remnants and / or planting of and change of Kitchener Park funding allows programme, advice Day facitlities Flood protection coming under active sites under active existing sites Massey Hill and information. Infrastructure management. management) Kahuterawa One Plan rules Assessment of new The Gorge regarding sites Tawata biodiversity Waitarere Beach

The first three points listed above come under the Priority Sites (Bush Remnants and Wetlands) programme and the remaining three are captured by the Community Projects & Environmental Initiatives programme.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 225

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Sites managed under the Bush Remnants and Wetlands programme are normally privately

owned but the list of sites (see Annexes A & B) does include Department of Conservation (DOC) and Territorial Local Authority (TLA) reserves from time to time. It can also include “private” reserves owned by the likes of Forest and Bird. Maintenance programmes on sites accepted into the programme are assessed for their weed burden and complexity of the Item 11 Item control programme. Pest plant control, typically undertaken in year two onwards, is not always undertaken solely within the site or even within the property boundary; sometimes it is best to take a buffer or landscape approach to particular weeds. An example is Pinus contorta where seeds can be blown from hundreds of metres away. Other weeds can easily be addressed by the landowners themselves and are confined to within the site or the land holding. Projects in the Environmental Initiatives programme are more often than not partnerships between Horizons and external agencies or stakeholders; they almost always leverage additional resources and funding from a number of agencies directly or indirectly involved with the project. They range from single-agency partnerships such as the Kia Wharite project with the Department of Conservation (DOC) through to multi-agency partnerships of the Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge project.

2.2 Labour Resource

The Biodiversity Activity is supported by funding for 4.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff. The activity is directly managed on a day to day basis by the Team Leader– Biodiversity (Aaron Madden) and two full-time Biodiversity Advisers (Neil Mickleson and Ruth Fleeson).

AnnexA A third Biodiversity Adviser (Neil Gallagher) has been employed on a 2-year fixed term with a review at the end of the second year. The fixed term concludes on the 3rd August 2017. There is one other Natural Resources and Partnerships staff member (Joe Martin) who spends part of his time implementing the Bush Remnants and Wetlands programme. Joe is from the Freshwater team and does 560 hours each year for the Biodiversity team. He also does Bush Remnants and Wetlands work involving Nga Whenua Rahui kawenata (covenants). Labour and vehicle running costs for the Nga Whenua Rahui work are 100% recovered from Nga Whenua Rahui. Other labour resources covered in the Biodiversity programme are 100 hours of support from the Science team (James Lambie and/or Manas Chakraborty) and 60 hours of administrative support from the NRP Group Secretary (Maria Burgess).

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 226

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Potential Labour Resource Issue

3.1 Staff Member on Fixed Term Contract Item 11 Item In 2013-14 Council resolved to pare back its support of the Biodiversity activity, which resulted in the reduction of 1 FTE and an extension to the time frames in which the wetland and bush remnant programme would be completed. The Community Project group within this activity had traditionally involved about 20 discrete projects and/or sites which approximately 1 FTE could manage fully on an annual basis. However, over the past few years this activity group received an increasing number of ‘calls’ for advice, information and support in the wider biodiversity space. Typically, these calls are for planting plans (where and what to plant), requests for purchases of materials, educational presentations and to organise community based planting days. Many of these community events, particularly planting days, occur outside normal business hours. The increasing number of requests for services was seen as a positive outcome from Council’s efforts to engage with community, but resulted in a distinct and measurable increase in labour resource being used in this area. In response, the management team

prioritised its efforts and to support the increased demand from the community it moved resources from maintenance and auditing functions (within the Priority Sites Project Group). As a consequence, the Priority Sites projects were falling short of their annual goals. In response, management sought to restore the FTE lost in 2013-14 to cover the increased hours being spent in Community Biodiversity. This would allow the hours budgeted in the Priority Sites programme to be used in that programme, on the maintenance and auditing AnnexA activities that been somewhat neglected. Council supported this approach as part of its 2015-25 Long-term Plan and Neil Gallagher was added to the Biodiversity team on 3rd August 2015. Since joining the team, Neil has addressed all those neglected sites and deserves much of the credit for ensuring that the annual targets and the life-to-date targets are being met. However, a late amendment to the Long-term Plan approval meant that Neil’s position was changed to a two-year fixed term with a review at the end of the second year. The reason given for the fixed term was the uncertainty that existed around the potential impact of the new Health and Safety laws on working with, and liability for, volunteers. The likely consequences of his position being cut in August 2017 would be: . Failure to meet annual and life-to-date targets in the Priority Sites programme; . Reduced capacity to assist with Community Projects, including school visits; and . Significantly reduced ability to deliver on the bush understory monitoring programme, which was recently added to the team’s workload. All indications so far are that the Health and Safety issues are of little significance to the workload of the team. The continuation of the fixed term position beyond August 2017 will be a matter for consideration as part of the Annual Plan process for the 2017-18 year.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 227

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item 4 Progress to Date

The Biodiversity programme – specifically the bush remnant and wetland component – was started in earnest in 2007-08. The original intent of the programme, as signalled in the One Plan (Method 5), was to get 100 of the top wetlands and 200 of the top bush remnants under active management (i.e. stock proof and controlled for pests) by 2017-18. Council has since reviewed the programme twice (in 2010-11 and 2012-13) and resolved to reduce funding and subsequently targets, and the end date by which the 100 wetland and 200 bush remnant goal would be achieved. The modified targets subsequently differ from those in the One Plan and have a new target finish date of 2028-29 (see Graph 1). The annual goal is now to bring in three new wetlands and six new bush remnants per year. Last year (2015-16), good progress was made in bringing further wetlands and bush remnants into the priority programme. Three new wetlands and eight new bush remnants

were brought under active management. The life to date totals for the programme are now 59 wetlands and 118 bush remnants under active management. These figures are an exact match with the modified life to date targets.

AnnexA Graph 1 illustrates progress over the nine years in which the programme has been operating.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 228

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Graph 1: Wetland and Bush Remnant Protection and Management Activity showing actual number of managed wetlands and bush remnants at the end of the 2015-16 year match the revised targets

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 229

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 230

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5 Financial Overview

5.1 Financial ($1,579,010) Item 11 Item Biodiversity is managed under three activity/project categories: Bush Remnants and Wetlands, Regional Parks and Environmental Initiatives. Environmental Initiatives captures the biggest portion of funding with 53.7% of the total rate take, Bush Remnants and Wetlands have 34.6% and Regional Parks make up the remaining 11.7%. Table 1: Financial overview of Biodiversity activity group – 2016-17 Total Programme Rate Funding Income Operational % Total Budget Budget Bush Remnants and $546,622 34.6% Wetlands Regional Parks $185,071 $45,600 $230,671 11.7% Environmental Initiatives $847,317 53.7% Total $1,579,010 $45,600 $1,624,610 100%

These projects are funded mainly by a uniform annual charge (UAC) rate for Environmental Initiatives, and sometimes both a targeted UAC and General Rate. Two examples of a targeted UAC are: the Rangitikei Environment Group (REG), which is funded 100% by a UAC on Rangitikei ratepayers; and the 90% UAC funded by Manawatu and Palmerston North City ratepayers for Totara Reserve Regional Park.

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 231

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.2 Priority sites - Bush Remnants and Wetlands ($546,622)

Work in this category involves protecting the high priority Bush Remnants and Wetlands. This includes pest control for both animals and plants. Some sites benefit from the work

undertaken in the Possum Control Operations, Amenity Pest and Sites of Significance Item 11 Item projects that are funded by Biosecurity budgets. This has been recognised in the construction of the operational budget, with funding shifting out of those activities for Biodiversity. Biodiversity Environmental Grants and Biodiversity Support are also part of this project group, as most of these initiatives are either Bush Remnants or Wetlands.

Table 2: Financial overview of priority sites activity funding – 2016-17 Total Operational Programme Rate Funding % Total Budget Budget Active management $130,000 $130,000 24% Maintenance $86,622 $86,622 16% Monitor & audit $130,000 $130,000 24% Sub-total $346,622 $346,622 65% Pest plant control $65,000 $65,000 10% Biodiversity support $45,000 $45,000 9% Biodiversity E-Grants $90,000 $90,000 17%

Sub-total $200,000 $200,000 35% Total $546,622 $546,622 100%

Table 3: Priority sites project rate funding – 2016-17 Budget Funding Type Project Name Comment AnnexA Amount General Rate UAC Biodiversity Management Biodiversity $346,622 50% ($173,311) 50% ($173,311) Mainly internal labour Management Sub-total $346,622 $173,311 $173,311 Support & Grants Pest control for Biodiversity Pest Plant $65,000 50% ($32,500) 50% ($32,500) existing sites Control (maintenance spend) Funding to establish Biodiversity Support $45,000 50% ($22,500) 50% ($22,500) new sites Funding to establish Biodiversity E-Grant $90,000 50% ($45,000) 50% ($45,000) new sites Sub Total $200,000 50% ($100,000) 50% ($100,000) Total $546,622 $273,311 $273,311

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 232

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.3 Totara Reserve Regional Park ($185,071)

Table 4: Totara Reserve Regional Park – 2016-17 Reserves & Total Programme Rate Funding Other Operational % Total Budget

Income Budget Item 11 Item Regional Reserve $185,071 $185,071 80% Camping fees, rent & $45,600 $45,600 20% CRW lease Total $185,071 $45,600 $230,671 100%

Work in this category is all the activity undertaken in Totara Reserve Regional Park. River works, managed by Horizons’ River Management Group, will account for $50,000 of the total budget this year. .The remaining funds are allocated to the running of Totara Reserve Regional Park. This is one of the projects with a targeted UAC and 90% of the funding is generated by a UAC on Manawatu District and Palmerston North City ratepayers. During the 2015-16 financial year, approval was gained to use $161,000 of the Totara Reserve Regional Park reserves for walking track upgrades. The work was broken into two phases with only the first phase – replacement of all existing steps and about 750m of new

track – being completed before the end of the financial year. Phase two involved replacement of existing boardwalks, installation of additional boardwalks and the installation of two pedestrian bridges to improve safety. Phase two was delayed due to contractor availability and only the pre-fabrication of the bridges was completed before the end of the financial year. As such, only around $100,000

was spent and approval will be sought from Council to spend the balance in the 2016-17 AnnexA financial year. This will be for the completion of Phase two of the track upgrade and to top up Horizons share of the new playground. The playground project was delayed due to difficulties in securing sufficient external funding and then by contractor availability. Both of these projects are scheduled for July 2016 with completion dates in early September for the track and October for the playground. The concept plan for the new playground has been included to show what we expect to be in place by the time camping season opens on Labour Weekend. Cost for the playground will be slightly under $80,000. External funding secured for the playground construction is as follows: . Eastern and Central Community Trust - $20,000 . Mainland Foundation - $10,000 . Blue Sky Community Trust - $8,000 . Lion Foundation - $8,000 Some of the $50,000 allocated to river management will be used for maintenance of the existing bank protection works. The majority of it will fund the design and construction of a groyne system to stop further erosion of the toe of a strategic scarp. The groyne will double as a walkway and part of the proposed link between the Gilchrist Loop Track and the Fern Walk.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 233

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 5: Totara Reserve Regional Park funding – 2016-17 Funding Type Budget Project Name Targeted Comment Amount (PNCC / MDC) General rate rate

Item 11 Item Regional Reserve $185,071 Camping & day $45,600 facilities Sub Total $230,671 Camp Other income ($45,600) fees, rent & lease Net rates Total $185,071*1 90% ($166,564) 10% ($18,507)

Table 6: Totara Reserve Regional Park detailed operational budget – 2016-17 Programme Funding % Total Budget Totara Reserve Regional Park Flood protection $50,000 21.7% Pests Pest plants $40,000 17.3%

Pest animals $35,000 15.2% Infrastructure Signage $3,000 1.3% Site maintenance mowing (8 @ $852) $6,816 3%

AnnexA Labour & consumables $8,577 3.7% Fixed costs (insurance etc.) $2,000 0.9% General Reserve R&M $6,000 2.6% Playground replacement $15,000 6.5% Track maintenance & contract management $25,000 10.8% Sub total $191,393 83% Off-season income (rental property and lease) ($4,300) Net Operational Costs $187,093 Seasonal Camp Ground (6 months) Mowing (10 @ $852) $8,520 3.7% Spray (6 @ $539) $3,234 1.4% Fixed & variable costs (power, insurance etc.) $7,688 3.3% Labour & consumables (peak) $19,836 8.6% Sub-total $39,278 17% Income (rental property, lease and camp fees) ($41,300) Net Camping Costs ($2,022) TOTAL BUDGET TOTAL BUDGET $230,671 100% NET RATE FUNDING $185,071

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 234

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 235

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.4 Environmental Initiatives ($847,317)

Table 7: Environmental initiatives activity funding – 2016-17

Programme Rate Funding % Total Budget Item 11 Item Biodiversity (Environmental Initiatives) Management $258,777 30.5% Sub-total $258,777 30.5% Rangitikei Environment Group (REG) $95,000 11.2% Kia Wharite $150,000 17.7% 1 Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge Enhancement* $42,760 5% Weedbusters Palmerston North $50,000 5.9% Tawata Mainland Island $50,000 5.9% Waitarere Community Project $7,000 0.8% Mt Bruce/Pukaha $25,000 3% Sub-total $419,760 49.5% Massey Hill $5,000 0.6% Te Potae o Awarua $10,000 1.2% Turitea Reserve $23,000 2.7%

Awahuri Forest-Kitchener Park $5,000 0.6% Bushy Park (NB: Increased in 2015/16 as per LTP) $20,000 2.3% Kahuterawa Biodiversity Project $24,000 2.8% Moawhango Project $0 0%

Foxton River Loop $10,000 1.2% AnnexA Manawatu Estuary $5,000 0.6% Sub-total $102,000 12% New projects General support $16,668 2% Gate Pa Restoration $2,000 0.25% Manawatu Estuary Enhance Predator Programme $2,000 0.25% Ohau Beach Walkway $5,000 0.6% Himatangi Beach Reserve $1,000 0.1% Sub total $26,668 3.2% Other National initiatives $10,000 1.2% Sub total $10,000 1.2% Iwi Grants & Support General iwi biodiversity projects $15,000 1.8% Te Hononga Maunga $15,000 1.8% Sub-total $30,000 3.6% Total $847,317 100% Note *1: See following table for detailed operational breakdown.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 236

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table 8: Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge Operational Budget 2016-17 (proposed) Programme Rate Funding % Total Budget Te Apiti Book $5,000 3.3% Te Hononga Maunga 15,000 10.1%

Governance costs $3,760 2.5% Item 11 Item Car park, fencing and signage $4,000 2.7% Pest plants $50,000 33.6% Pest animals $40,000 26.9% Marketing (website, signage etc.) $23,000 15.5% Ferry Reserve $4,000 2.7% Ashhurst Domain $4,000 2.7% Total Expenses $148,760 100% Funded by Horizons ($42,760) PNCC ($42,000) Department of Conservation ($20,000) KiwiRail ($5,000) NZTA ($5,000)

Tararua District Council ($5,000) Carry forward ~($29,000) Total Income ($148,760) Net 0

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 237

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Table9: Environmental initiatives project funding – 2016-17 Funding type Budget Project name General Diff UAC Diff UAC Waitarere amount UAC Rate >4ha <4ha UAC

Item 11 Item Management Community 50% 50% Biodiversity $258,777 ($129,388) ($129,388) Management Sub total $258,777 $129,388 $129,388 Community Projects Rangitikei 70% 30% Environment Group $95,000 ($66,500) ($28,500) (REG) 50% 50% Kia Wharite $150,000 ($75,000) ($75,000) Weedbusters 50% 50% $50,000 Palmerston North ($25,000) ($25,000) Tawata Mainland 50% 50% $50,000 Island ($25,000) ($25,000) Waitarere 100% $7,000 Community Project ($7,000) 50% 50% Gorge Enhancement $42,760 ($21,380) ($21,380) 50% 50% Mt Bruce/Pukaha $25,000 ($12,500) ($12,500) Sub total $419,760 $158,880 $158,880 $66,500 $28,500 $7,000

General grants and subsidies AnnexA 50% 50% Biodiversity Support $45,000 ($22,500) ($22,500) Community 50% 50% $83,780 Biodiversity Projects ($41,890) ($41,890) Sub-total $128,780 $64,390 $64,390 General grants and subsidies Biodiversity Regional 100% $10,000 / National Initiatives ($10,000) 100% Iwi Grants $30,000 ($30,000) Sub total $40,000 $10,000 $30,000 43% 45% 7.8% 3.4% 0.8% Total $847,317 ($362,658) ($382,658) ($66,500) ($28,500) ($7,000) Work in this category covers community and partnership initiatives. Some projects receive direct funding support from this budget, including community initiatives like Tawata Mainland Island and Rangitikei Environment Group (REG). Other projects in this group involve partnerships, such as Kia Wharite, Te Apiti Manawatu Gorge and Mt Bruce/Pukaha. The funding types are a mix of targeted and general rating, mostly 50:50 splits. However, where the benefits are deemed to be enjoyed by smaller, well defined groups, targeted UACs of a higher proportion have been applied. REG has a 100% targeted UAC contributed by Rangitikei ratepayers while the Waitarere Beach project also has a 100% UAC funded by the Waitarere Beach community. Some community initiatives that do not have regular or agreed fixed ongoing annual support are assisted under the Biodiversity Support budget. Every effort is being made to deliver on the Biodiversity targets and outcomes while operating within this budget. Close monitoring of expenditure will ensure budgets are not exceeded. If financial monitoring indicates over-expenditure is likely, late season forecast work will be deferred.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 238

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.5 Targeted Rates Reserves

The expenditure on Biodiversity programmes can vary from budget on a year to year basis. These variations can be caused by such factors as unusually good growing seasons resulting in worse than usual weed problems. When these events occur, the adverse

budgetary impact can be funded using targeted rate reserves, if any exist. 11 Item Any call-up of any targeted rates reserves is subject to approval from Council and its Audit and Risk Committee. Formal approval for such a transaction, if required, will be sought from the Audit and Risk Committee as the works programme unfolds during the year. Totara Reserve Regional Park is the only programme that we plan to seek approval for in 2016-17.

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 239

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6 Implementation of Programmes

6.1 Priority Sites - Bush Remnants and Wetlands Item 11 Item

6.1.1 Introduction

Due to region-wide habitat losses and changing land use, our indigenous species and habitats are further threatened by, and highly vulnerable to, pest plants, pest animals, livestock access and hydrological modifications. The original aim of this programme was to have 200 high priority bush remnants and 100 high priority wetlands under active management within a 10-year timeframe. Active management in this context means the site is fenced to exclude stock, receives supplementary planting as required, and receives ongoing pest plant and animal control as required. Targets were subsequently revised to 150 bush remnants and 75 wetlands because the ongoing cost of maintaining sites leaves less in the budget for protecting new sites. With the reduction of one full-time equivalent staff resource in 2012-13, the 10-year targets were again revised. The new targets are 130 bush remnants and 65 wetlands by the end of the

2017-18 financial year.

The total number of high priority bush remnants under active management at the beginning of the 2016-17 year was 118, and the number of sites under partial management was 27. Partial management means that not all of the steps towards active management have been completed. In most cases, the missing step is pest plant and/or animal control. For high priority wetlands, the numbers are 59 sites under active management and 23 sites under AnnexA partial management.

6.1.2 Performance Measures for Priority sites – Wetland & Bush Remnants programme Table10: Priority sites – Wetlands & Bush Remnants performance measures Measuring achievement Annual target Actions required  Undertake rapid ecological assessments (REAs) on Assess all new sites introduced Assess new sites potential new sites to the programme  Enter REA assessments into site register

 Seek qualifying sites Annually add 3 new wetlands  Negotiate management under active management programme with landowner Activity manage qualifying sites  Carryout E-Grant assessment Annually add 6 new bush remnants under active  Organise contractors management necessary to protect site  Annually inspect agreed (sample) sites to evaluate Complete annual sample* Monitor effectiveness effectiveness of programme. monitor and audit programme  Record results in corporate database  Prioritise budget allocation for Assess all managed sites and pest control undertake necessary weed and  Carry out weed and pest Maintain existing sites pest control. control as funding allocation allows Ensure stock exclusion is  Arrange for necessary R&M maintained on all compromised fencing

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 240

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

 Report bi-monthly on which Report bi-monthly on which sites are added to the lists of sites are added to the lists of actively or partially managed Reporting actively or partially managed sites sites  Update active sites register

(see annexes A & B) 11 Item

*The Science team will be engaging Melanya Yukhnevich on a one year fixed term contract to, among other things, undertake a re-vamp of the wetlands inventory to sort the wetlands into their types and to undertake an assessment of the high priority wetlands programme. This is needed to determine whether or not the high priority wetlands programme is adequately representing all habitat types and is critical to a wetland monitoring programme. Included in the work will be an audit of all the managed wetland sites not just a sample.

AnnexA

Photo 1: Kahikatea fruiting in Paki-iti Bush, April 2016. Photo by Neil Gallagher, Horizons Regional Council

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 241

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.2 Wetland location and Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 242

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.3 Bush remnant location and Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA)

Item 11 Item

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 243

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.4 Regional Parks

6.4.1 Introduction

Totara Reserve Regional Park was vested in Horizons’ management at the beginning of the Item 11 Item 2011-12 financial year. For several years prior, it was managed in partnership with Manawatu District Council. An advisory group is now in place to handle the strategic management of the Regional Park. The advisory group consists of two Councillors, two staff representatives (ex officio), two iwi representatives and two representatives from the local community. Some of the main issues to be addressed this year are the maintenance and upgrades of the walking tracks, further improvements to signage and the installation of a new playground. The completion of the Fern Walk upgrade will be funded from reserves and includes the installation of two new bridges and several boardwalks. New steps to make the steeper sections of the new track on the Fern Walk are required and, if funding allows, a connecting track to link the Nature Trail to the Pettifar Loop is the next priority for track upgrades.

6.4.2 Performance Measures

Table11: Regional Park performance measures Target Actions required Update the DOC report on required track Have a track upgrade and maintenance upgrades with relevant costings and add new programme approved by Council. work as required.

AnnexA Work with the Communications team and the Complete signage plan implementation. Advisory Group on final design and locations. Work with contractor to implement the design Install new playground. plan.

6.4.3 Planned Activity

Item Objectives Planned activity Manage pest plant levels for the Continue to implement the pest plant control Pest plant control protection of habitat values and programme. the enjoyment of visitors. Manage pest animal levels for Continue to implement the pest animal Pest animal control the protection of habitat values control programme. Review the monitoring and the enjoyment of visitors. work for rat numbers. Provide walking tracks of an Continue with track maintenance and Walking tracks appropriate standard. upgrade programmes. Provide a safe and enjoyable Install a new playground at the [new] Kereru Playground play experience for young camping ground. visitors. Provide suitable levels of Install new signage at both camping Camping ground camping facilities. grounds. Reduce the impact of the River engineering Pohangina River on Totara This work is managed by the Operations works Reserve Regional Park and its Group. facilities.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 244

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.5 Environmental Initiatives

6.5.1 Introduction

Environmental Initiatives covers biodiversity-related projects that extend beyond the Item 11 Item property boundary of a single landowner and/or involve community groups or external agencies. The current suite of projects targets sites or areas with environmental, recreational, social and cultural values. Generally these projects involve contributions from a variety of external agencies or third parties, with projects typically managed using a collaborative approach. As the projects develop and expand they commonly draw in additional funding from partnering agencies, and they become a focal point for economic development opportunities such as tourism and accommodation ventures. The wide range of work undertaken in this programme has been under-reported in the past, possibly due to low funding input by Horizons into some projects. Those projects do require support in terms of staff time and this should be acknowledged. They include the technical support for Horizons’ Community Grant, work with Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) on Edwards Pit Park and the Linklater Reserve, Friends of Waitoetoe Park and school projects such as at Kimbolton School, Longburn School and Bainesse School.

6.5.2 Performance Measures

Table 62: Environmental Initiatives performance measures Projects Measuring achievement Target

.Manawatu Gorge AnnexA .Kia Wharite .Mt Bruce/Pukaha .Kitchener Park .Rangitikei Environment Group .Manawatu Estuary .Waitarere Community Project .Bushy Park .Tawata Mainland Island .Massey Hill .Oroua Blue Duck Project Continue to support existing NRP to report bi-monthly on the community-based biodiversity .Turitea Reserve progress of each project. .Weedbusters Palmerston improvement projects. North .Moawhango River Restoration .Te Potae o Awarua .Manawatu River Loop at Foxton .Lower Kahuterawa Stream Biodiversity Restoration .Gate Pa Bush Restoration .Ohau Beach Walkway .Himatangi Beach Reserve

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 245

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6.5.3 Planned Activity

Project Name Partners Planned activity Palmerston North City Council (PNCC)

Item 11 Item Department of Conservation (DOC) Pest plant and animal control programmes. Te Apiti-Manawatu Tararua District Council (TDC) Revegetation programme. Gorge NZ Transport Agency Development of other visitor assets such as car park landscaping. KiwiRail Iwi Private landowners Department of Conservation Pest animal control programme to benefit whio Kia Wharite (DOC) (blue duck) and kiwi populations. Tawata Mainland Tawata Trust Funding contribution towards the pest animal Island Te Amo Taiao control programme. Coastal wattle control on and behind the Horowhenua District Council Waitarere Beach foredune. Waitarere Beach (HDC) Multiple species pest plant control along Community Project Department of Conservation Wairarawa Stream. (DOC) Spinifex propagation and planting on foredune. Department of Conservation Pest plant and animal control programmes in the Mt Bruce/Pukaha

(DOC) buffer zone around the reserve.

Fund pest plant control at various sites, including Rangitikei Rangitikei Environment Group Spooner’s Hill and Mt Stewart. Urban Environment Group (REG) component restored via Weedbusters-style (REG) Rangitikei District Council (RDC) programmes in Marton and Taihape. Palmerston North City Council Site-led pest plant control programme in urban Weedbusters (PNCC) and peri-urban areas of Palmerston North and AnnexA Palmerston North Feilding. Funding contribution towards the pest animal Bushy Park Bushy Park Trust control programme. Funding contribution towards the pest plant and Awahuri Forest - Manawatu District Council (MDC) animal control programmes. Advisory Trustee Kitchener Park (AFKP) (no voting rights) at AFKP Trust meetings. Palmerston North City Council Undertake pest plant control and make a funding Turitea Reserve (PNCC) contribution towards the pest animal control and monitoring programmes. Manawatu Estuary Trust (MET) Department of Conservation Pest animal control (focusing on mustelids) and (DOC) pest plant control programmes and management Manawatu Estuary Horowhenua District Council advice. (HDC) Save Our River Trust (SORT) Palmerston North City Council (PNCC) Massey Hill Massey University Weed control and planting programme. Presbyterian Education Purposes Trust Board This project has been completed. However, this Oroua Blue Duck project inspired the formation of several other - Project predator control projects that we also support e.g. Te Potae o Awarua. Save Our River Trust (SORT) Manawatu River Loop Provide advice and funding assistance for weed Horowhenua District Council at Foxton control, revegetation plantings and fencing. (HDC) Moawhango River Genesis Energy Ltd None planned for this financial year. Restoration Lower Kahuterawa NZ Defence Force Provide advice and funding assistance for weed Stream Biodiversity Massey University control and planting programme. Restoration Project

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 246

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Project Name Partners Planned activity

Department of Conservation Funding contribution towards the predator control Te Potae o Awarua (DOC) programme. Himatangi Beach Provide advice and funding assistance for weed Manawatu District Council (MDC) Reserve control and planting programme.

Gate Pa Bush NZ Defence Force Provide advice and funding assistance for weed 11 Item Restoration Project Massey University control and planting programme. Horowhenua District Council (HDC) Provide advice and funding assistance for weed Ohau Beach Walkway Department of Conservation control and planting programme. (DOC)

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 247

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7 Reporting

7.1 Introduction Item 11 Item

The Biodiversity outputs will be reported on as described in the following table. Our aim is to highlight the important events that occur outside the planned operations, as well as the outcomes being gained due to the intervention of Horizons’ site management and also its community programmes.

Table 73: Reporting performance measures Report Comment The Annual Report will report against Annual Annual Report Plan commitments as they relate to Biodiversity. Bi-monthly reports will be prepared to report Bi-monthly Environment Committee Report progress towards meeting annual targets.

Biodiversity Monitoring Report The Biosecurity Manager and the Environmental Such reporting will include: Coordinator – Science are responsible for

. Assessing performance against budget; preparing the ‘Biodiversity Monitoring Report’ to

. Targets that were met; and assess progress made against targets in the . Problems that were encountered. Biodiversity Operational Plan. The Biosecurity Manager is responsible for initiating a review of the Operational Plan Biodiversity Operational Plan (Monitoring Report) by February each year. The

AnnexA completed Operational Plan is due by 30 June. Monthly performance against monthly phased budget will be reported to Council’s Audit & Risk Financial Committee, to corporate standard “Monthly Financial Report”.

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 248

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8 Appendix 1 – Bush Remnant Inventory as at 30 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity 11 Item BUSH REMNANTS UNDER ACTIVE MANAGEMENT Aotea Bush [Te Paenga] Baddeley’s Bush Baines Bush Barrell’s Road Bush QEII Barry Bush Bishop 5hr Bush Bishop Lake Bush Bishop Mill Bush Bishop River Queen Bush Bledisloe Park Bob Wakelin Bush Bristol's Bush [Karakia Stream Bush, Momo]

Bushy Park Chan’s 1 Clausen’s Bush Cole’s Bush Reserve

Cole's Orautoha [Cole’s 1, Cole’s 2 and Stream] AnnexA Concretion Terrace Bush Cook's Bush [Ohorea Cook's] Cranstone A Bush Continue pest plant and animal control and Cranstone B Bush Maintain sites as revegetation planting as actively managed. Dobson Bush necessary. Ensure fence is Durie’s Bush adequate to exclude stock. Esplanade Bush Fahey Bush Field's Track Bush Field’s Track Roadside Bush Fife Forest Fullerton-Smith's Back Bush Fullerton-Smith's Bush GH Dear Trust Graham's Bush Greystoke Scenic Reserve Heale Bush Henderson Bush Joe’s Bush Kakatahi Stream Bush Kavanagh Bush Kawhatau Junction Forest Keeble’s Farm Bush Kelly's Bush Kingsdale Bush

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 249

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity

Laird’s Reserve Lindeman Bush Malcolm Bush

Item 11 Item Manawakaikiekie Bush Manawatu Gorge Manderson’s Bush Mangaone Stream Mangawhero Riparian Bush Mangoihe Stream Catchment Matthews’ No-One’s Bush Matthews’ Verity’s Bush Matthews’ Woolshed Bush McPherson’s Reserve Midland Road Bush Morikau Bush Mount View Bush No.1 Moxham Bush

Mt Bruce (Pukaha) and extension Nevill's Back Bush Ngaparuru-Mangatoro Reserve [PED SITE 44] Ngapuke Bush

Nga Wakahiamoe Bush AnnexA Nitschke’s Bush Norwood Bush Ohorea Bush Ohorea Homestead Bush Continue pest plant and animal control and Ohorea Max Maintain sites as revegetation planting as actively managed. Ohorea Picnic Bush necessary. Ensure fence is Ohorea Pukeho Bush adequate to exclude stock. Ohorea River Bush Ohutu Pylons [Ohutu Native] Oio No.1 Road Forest Oio No.1 Road Forest Extension Okahu Bush [Bristol’s Road Bush] Okahu Stream Bush [Heinold's Bush] Omaha Stream [Monckton’s Bush] Omerei Bush [Triangle] Otaranaho Bush Pah Hill / Back Bush Pah Hill Jungle Paki-iti Bush Pakipaki Dune Forest Paoraameka Trig Bush [Matahiwi] Patterson Scenic Reserve & Perry’s Bush Pope’s Bush [Weber Bush] Poulton Bush QEII Pouwhakaura Bush

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 250

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity

Pryce's Rahui Bush [Rahui Bush Reserve] Rakaupuhipuhi Stream [Ti Tree Point] Raukawa [Raukawa Falls]

Read Bush Makuri PED Site 54 11 Item Stinker's Bush Sutherland Mangahoe Reserve Sutherland’s Bush Tawanui Bush Tawanui Cattleyards Bush Tawanui Cyril’s Bush Tawanui Rough Bush Te Rimu Station Forest Te Uranga Bush 1 Te Uranga Bush 2 Te Uranga Bush 3 The Falls QEII Tiriraukawa Bush B

Tohunga Bush Tokomaru River Bush [McPhail's & Bill’s] Totara Reserve Turitea Reserve

Waipuna Jerusalem Bush AnnexA Waipuna Journeaux Waipuna Mataurihi WED SITE 16 [Mangahao Sth Rd Scout Camp] Whangaehu Fragments Wheeler’s Bush Whitiki Bush Winstone’s House Bush BUSH REMNANTS UNDER PARTIAL MANAGEMENT Avery Bush QEII [WED SITE 25] Bird Grove Bush Dress Circle Scenic Reserve Where physical, financial and Ederdale Bush landowner constraints allow, Hautawa Stream Bush provide the missing Highden Bush management component. The missing component Heretaunga RAP 40 [Rolston QEII] could be pest plant control, Hokio Sands Road Remnants (QEII) pest animal control or Upgrade these sites to effective stock exclusion. In Jean Bell Bush actively managed. some cases, all of the Maewa Station Bush management components Mangawharariki River Bush are in place but the site status has been incorrectly Mangawhero Tributary Riparian Bush reported. All sites under Manunui partial management will be checked for accuracy of McLeay’s Bush reported information. PED SITE 25 PED SITE 63 [Rangedale Rimu QEII] Priest (Ngatawa)

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 251

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity

PED SITE 6 [Southern Star Abbey] PED SITE 7 [Southern Star Abbey] PED SITE 228 [Woodhouse QEII]

Item 11 Item Pukewhinau Trig Bush QEII Rangitane Ridge Road South Bush Te Namu Trig Bush Titirangi Scenic Reserve Vickers' Bush (3 blocks) Wright’s Bush

AnnexA

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 252

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 11 Item 9 Appendix 2 – Wetland Inventory as at 30 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity WETLANDS UNDER ACTIVE MANAGEMENT Bailey's Wetland Ballance Bridge wetland forest/Ferry Reserve Broadland’s Wetland Christie's Lake [Rotokura Lake] Cooper Road Bog Erua Bog Fault Fen Gordon Park Scenic Reserve Graham Road Swamp

Higgie’s Wetland A (QEII) Himatangi Bush Scientific Reserve Hukanui Source Swamp Kai Kai Lagoon

Koputara Lake 2 AnnexA Koputara Lake 3 Koputaroa Scientific (Snail) Reserve Lake Alice Lake Horowhenua (incl. Kaihuka Swamp & Whitiki Bush) Lake Horowhenua West Bush [Te Kupe Bush]

Lake Huritini Continue pest plant and

animal control and Lake Koputara/QEII Willis Maintain sites as revegetation planting as Lake Papaitonga/Waiwiri actively managed. necessary. Ensure fence is Lake Pauri adequate to exclude stock. Lake Vipan Lake Wiritoa Makerua Swamp Wildlife Management Reserve Makirikiri Tarns Mangatu Bog Nga Kawau Lagoon Ngapiri Swamp QEII Ngaruru Lakes Ngatukorua 1 [Te Paata Wetland 1] Ngatukorua 2 [Te Paata Wetland 2] Ngatukorua 4 [Te Paata Wetland 4] Ohau Estuary Oporae Wetland Complex QEII Oporau Lagoon Otamataraha Wetland Pah Hill 1 Pah Hill 2 Parikino Swamp Forest Parker Gully Wetland

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 253

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Site Name Objective Planned activity

Pukepuke Lagoon QEII Seifert Raketapauma Swamp [Irirangi Swamp]

Item 11 Item Raurimu Station Wetlands Reporoa Bog Round Bush Scenic Reserve/Omarupapukau Simpson’s Reserve Tarata Trust Wetland Taupunga (Bill’s)/Okuku Road Bush Te Hakari Wetland Totara Reserve (wetland habitats) Tui Vale QEII Waayer Wetland QEII Waitewhena Scenic Reserve Waratah Wetland QEII WED SITE 50 [L Genet] Wickham Open Space Covenant

WETLANDS UNDER PARTIAL MANAGEMENT Ashhurst Domain Doble’s Wetland Forest Haukopua Scenic Reserve

Karioi Flaxland AnnexA Kitchener Park Lake Kaitoke Liley Wetland [Dempsey Wetland] Where physical, financial and Lund’s Oxbow landowner constraints allow, provide the missing Manawatu Estuary management component. Manawatu Estuary Saltmarsh The missing component could be pest plant control, Matatara Swamp - QEII (Aim) pest animal control or Mott’s wetland - Murimotu Upgrade these sites to effective stock exclusion. In Mott’s wetland - Pederson Dairy actively managed. some cases, all of the management components Moutoa Flax Reserve are in place but the site Ngamatea Swamp (West) status has been incorrectly reported. All sites under Ngatukorua 3 [Te Paata Wetland 3] partial management will be Ohakune Lakes Scenic Reserve checked for accuracy of Perawiti's Wetland reported information. Rangitikei Estuary and Saltmarsh Tangimoana Fernbird Area Todd Wetland Tree Daisy Wetland Twin Lakes [Otoko]

Biodiversity Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 254

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-136 Information Only - No Decision Required

REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN & STRATEGY OPERATIONAL PLAN 2016- 12 Item 17

1. PURPOSE 1.1. This item is to present to Members the draft Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan for 2016-17. 1.2. Management are seeking endorsement of this plan.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-136 and Annex. b. recommends that Council formally adopt and release the 2016/17 Operational Plan as annexed to this item.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT 3.1. There are no financial impacts associated with this item. The operational plan reflects previously endorsed budgets approved as part of Council’s annual planning and long term planning processes.

4. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.1. The community have had the opportunity to comment on budgetary aspects of the operational plans referred to in this item as part of the engagement and submissions run during the long term planning processes. Copies of these documents will be made available to the community via Council’s website as they are formally released.

5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Operational Plans are reviewed annually in a separate monitoring report. This Operational Plan is the first as combined animal and plant plan to be prepared as in previous years these have been separate. At the time this Operational Plan was written (June 2016) the council are well advanced in the review of the Combined Regional Pest Management Plan and Strategy and it is acknowledged that some changes to the Operational Plan may be required after the Plan and Strategy are formally adopted. 5.2. The animals section of the Operational Plan includes the possum control operation (PCO) project, management of rooks and the pest animals response/amenity pest programme. The PCO programme is entering its 11th year and the Operational Plan signals some reporting to be completed on the first 10 years of the programme, including analysis of the monitoring that has been done to date. The report also acknowledges that there may be some changes to the levels of service by OSPRI and that work will be undertaken to understand this and to identify what if any responses are Horizons may consider.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 255

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5.3. The plant section of the report overviews the pest plant management activity and the range of programmes that sit within that including Zero-density, Production, Crown/Non-Ratable, Surveillance and Biocontrol.

Item 12 Item 6. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 6.1. There is no significant business risk associated with this item.

7. SIGNIFICANCE 7.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement.

Bill Martyn BIOSECURITY & HABITAT PROTECTION MANAGER Jon Roygard GROUP MANAGER NATURAL RESOURCES & PARTNERSHIPS

ANNEXES A Regional Pest Management Operational Plan 2016-17

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 256

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

12 Item

Combined Regional Pest Management Operational Plan 2016-17

AnnexA

July 2016

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 257

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 12 Item

Endorsed by Council at the Environment Committee meeting on xxx

Authors Bill Martyn Manager - Natural Resources and Partnerships

Eric Dodd Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator

AnnexA Cover Photo Horizons Regional Council

July 2016 Report No: 2015/EXT/1483 ISBN 978-1-927259-52-8

CONTACT 24 hr Freephone 0508 800 800 [email protected] www.horizons.govt.nz

Kairanga Cnr Rongotea and Levin Kairanga-Bunnythorpe 11 Bruce Road Roads Palmerston North Palmerston North 11-15 Victoria Avenue Taihape SERVICE REGIONAL DEPOTS Torere Road CENTRES HOUSES Marton Wanganui Ohotu Hammond Street 181 Guyton Street Woodville Taumarunui 116 Vogel Street 34 Maata Street

POSTAL Horizons Regional Council, Private Bag 11025, Manawatu Mail Centre, Palmerston North 4442 F 06 9522 929 ADDRESS

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 258

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The biosecurity activity focuses on protecting the Region from threats to production, biosecurity and amenity values posed by pest, or appropriate prevention of the further spread of pests. The pests to be managed and the methods of control are set out in the Regional Pest Animal Management 12 Item Strategy (RPAMS) 2009 and Regional Pest Plant Strategy 2009. Horizons Regional Council is the management agency for this pest management strategy and is also responsible for preparing annual Operational Plans. These plans outline the nature, scope and financial expenditure of the activities Horizons Regional Council intends to undertake in the implementation of the Regional Pest Animal/Plant Management Strategy for the 2016-17 year. This Operational Plan highlights another significant commitment to the funding for Regional biosecurity initiatives. Operational Plans are reviewed annually in a separate monitoring report. This Operational Plan is the first as combined animal and plant plan to be prepared under the new RPAMS. The first section is the Operational Plan for animals and the second section is the plants Operational Plan. At the time this Operational Plan was written (June 2016) the council were well advanced in the review of the Combined Regional Pest Management Plan and Strategy and it is acknowledged that some changes

to the Operational Plan may be required after the Plan and Strategy are formally adopted.

For further information about the Operational Plan and pest animal management please contact Eric Dodd, Coordinator Animals at Horizons Taumarunui Service Centre and Craig Davey, Coordinator Plants at Horizon Regional House in Whanganui.

AnnexA

Michael McCartney 20. CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 259

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 12 Item

AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 260

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

CONTENTS

ANIMALS 7

1 Introduction 7 Item 12 Item 1. 1.1 Background 7 2. 1.2 Purpose of the Operational Plan 7 3. 1.3 Report Format 7 2 Implementation of Programmes 10 4. 2.1 Introduction 10 5. 2.2 Methods and Resources 10 6. 2.3 Management 11 7. 2.4 Reporting 12 3 Financial Overview 14 8. 3.1 Financial and Activity Summary 14 9. 3.2 Expenditure Summary 14

10. 3.3 Targeted Rates Reserves 14 4 Possums ($3,542,873) 16 11. 4.1 Overview 16

12. 4.2 Performance Measures 16 AnnexA 5 Rooks ($144,767) 18 13. 5.1 Performance Measures 18 6 Pest Animal Response/Amenity Pest ($148,904) 20 14. 6.1 Performance Measures 20 7 Monitoring ($138,929) 22 15. 7.1 Performance Measures 22 8 Annex A: Summary of Possum Control Operations 24 9 Annex B: PCO Map 2016-17 28 10 Annex C: Rook Map 2014-15 30 11 Annex D: RPAMS objectives and means of achievement 32 12 Annex E: Inputs Based Contracting 34 16. 12.1 Monitoring of Possums 34 17. 12.2 Inputs Monitored Contracts 34 18. 12.3 Summary 35 PLANTS 38 13 Introduction 38 19. 13.1 Background 38 20. 13.2 Explanation of Management Programmes 38 21. 13.3 Purpose of the Operational Plan 38 14 Pest Plant Programme Information 41 22. 14.1 Introduction 41

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 261

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

23. 14.2 Standards and Enforcement 41

15 Financial Overview 43 24. 15.1 Financial 43

25. 15.2 Targeted Rates Reserves 43 Item 12 Item 16 Implementation of Programmes 45 26. 16.1 Zero-Density 45 27. 16.2 Production 48 28. 16.3 Crown/non-rateable 50 29. 16.4 Surveillance 51 30. 16.5 Biocontrol 53 31. 16.6 Pest Plant Awareness 56 17 Reporting 59

AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 262

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

(A) ANIMALS

1 Introduction 12 Item

1.1 Background

As a requirement of the Biosecurity Act 1993, Horizons Regional Council (HRC) has prepared a Regional Pest Animal Management Strategy (RPAMS). The purpose of the strategy is to safeguard the Manawatu-Wanganui Region’s primary productivity, environmental quality and biological diversity from degradation by pest animals. The strategy provides a coordinated strategic and statutory framework for pest management so as to: . Reduce the occurrence of new pest animal incursions, . Suppress, contain or, where possible, eradicate pest populations that impact on Regional values; and

. Control pest animals in specific sites valued for biodiversity reasons.

During 2009-10 the Council completed a major review of the second RPAMS. The subsequent new strategy was adopted by Council in December 2009 and became operational on 10 January 2010. The strategy outlines how pest animals will be managed over the next 10 years. Responsibility for control lies either with Horizons Regional Council

or land occupiers. Horizons Regional Council has responsibilities to ensure land occupiers AnnexA are aware of, and meet their obligations for pest management on their properties. Under Section 85 of the Biosecurity Act, the management agency for a pest management strategy must prepare an annual Operational Plan. The Plan must be reviewed and reported on annually, no later than five months after the end of each financial year. Copies of the Operational Plan and the report on its implementation must be made available to the public. This document is the sixth Operational Plan to be prepared under the current RPAMS. Operational Plans are reviewed annually in a separate monitoring report. This Operational Plan is the first as combined animal and plant plan to be prepared under the new RPAMS. The first section is the Operational Plan for animals and the second section is the plants Operational Plan. At the time this Operational Plan was written (June 2016) the council were well advanced in the review of the Combined Regional Pest Management Plan and Strategy and it is acknowledged that some changes to the Operational Plan may be required after the Plan and Strategy are formally adopted.

1.2 Purpose of the Operational Plan

This Operational Plan outlines the nature and scope of activities Horizons Regional Council intends to undertake in the implementation of the Regional Pest Animal Management Strategy for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017. The tasks and performance measures by which outcomes can be assessed are also identified.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 263

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

1.3 Report Format

The Operational Plan should be read in conjunction with the current RPAMS and the Council’s Long-Term Plan (LTP).

Item 12 Item The LTP focuses on the actions (projects) that will be taken to manage individual animal pests or groups of pests and specifies the performance measures for these activities. This document also sets out the operational budget for each of these actions.

AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 264

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2 Implementation of Programmes

2.1 Introduction Item 12 Item

In preparing the strategy an assessment was undertaken of nominated potential pest animals, which resulted in each pest species being placed into one of four management categories. This assessment was based on the particular effects, distribution, density and available control methods; . Eradication - Eradication is a strategy reserved for pests that are of low incidence and/or of such high threat that it is more cost-effective to get rid of the pest completely. . Suppression – Suppression is a strategy for pests of low to moderate densities but of such wide geographical spread that they cannot feasibly be eradicated from the Region. . Site-led - A localised programme for removing all pests that threaten a regional value in a particular place and in conjunction with other management of that value. . Surveillance - Region-wide surveillance programme to search for and control new

incursions that pose a threat to the Region. Surveillance pests will generally sit off the Infestation Curve model as they are not yet present in the Region. Keeping an eye out for problems we can prevent is the most economic and practically feasible method by which to protect our Region from invasive pest animals. Section 100 of the Act may be

used to instigate emergency control. AnnexA Annex A lists the pest animals according to their respective categories.

2.2 Methods and Resources

Horizons Regional Council achieves effective pest management through the following methods: . Service delivery – Service delivery comes from a balance of general and targeted rates, depending on the exacerbator/beneficiary balance, and is a tool mainly used for amenity or site-led animal management, or when control options are only available to Horizons. Horizons will choose an appropriate method for control of a species, based on best industry practices. . Enforcement - Horizons will define and enforce rules where it is deemed that a regulatory approach is needed to ensure pest animals are managed appropriately. Rules and enforcement are used to ensure everyone controls pests in accordance with the objectives in the Strategy. . Advice - Horizons will provide advice on pest control options for any pest defined in the Strategy, and pass on to the community new information that arises from research and investigations. . Education - Education will be aimed at increasing awareness of the Strategy and of the concept of biosecurity in general. Combined with the advisory service, the focus will be on providing information and assistance to enable the community to identify problems and to carry out their own pest management. Certain high-risk dispersal avenues and activities will be identified and targeted for focused awareness campaigns.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 265

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

. Community Participation - Horizons will (at its discretion) establish and nurture

community adoption of local pest control issues or natural areas where the problem aligns with the control of animals identified in this strategy. Horizons will assist with management plans and/or funding where appropriate.

Item 12 Item . Research and investigations - National and international understanding of invasive species ecology is increasing and evolving all the time. It is imperative that Horizons provides the means for its staff to keep informed of such developments and abreast with changing management practices. Horizons will support or undertake research and training to contribute to the existing collective knowledge. Carefully considered biological control will be one focus of research efforts. Horizons will also undertake investigations to determine the extent of any new pest and its potential effect on regional values.

2.3 Management

The management and implementation of pest control programmes is the responsibility of the Natural Resources and Partnership team (NRAP). The Group Manager and Natural Resources and Partnership Manager provide the strategy direction of the programme with the Natural Resources and Partnership Coordinator (Animal Biosecurity) tasked with the

annual operational implementation. Approximately half of the field operational work (i.e. PCO, rook, amenity and monitoring) is programmed to be undertaken by the Natural Resources and Partnership operational teams, the balance being undertaken by external service providers.

AnnexA NRAP management is based at Regional House in Palmerston North and the operational team members are spread throughout the Region, in the Marton, Woodville, Wanganui, Taihape and Taumarunui Service Centres.

Group Manager Natural Resources and Partnerships

Manager Natural Resources and Partnerships

Natural Resources and Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator- Partnerships Coordinator Animal Biosecurity - Regional Response

Environmental Environmental Management Management Officers Supervisors/Officers - Animal Biosecurity - Animals

Figure 1: Biosecurity team structure 2016-17

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 266

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

2.4 Reporting

Report Comment: The Annual Report will report against Annual Plan commitments as Annual Report

they relate to Pest Animal Management. Item 12 Item Bi-monthly reports will be prepared to report progress towards Bi-monthly Environment Committee Report meeting annual targets. The Natural Resources and Partnership Manager and Coordinator are responsible for preparing the Pest Animal Monitoring Report to Pest Animal Monitoring Report assess progress made against targets in the Pest Animal Operational Plan. Pest Animal Operational Plan A review of the Operational Plan will be initiated in May of each year. The Frontline database will be kept current at all times, recording Amenity Pest Database and reporting all animal pest enquiries. Monthly performance against monthly phased budget will be Financial reported to Council’s Audit & Risk Committee, to corporate standard Monthly Financial Report.

AnnexA

Map 1: An example of ‘Input Map’ which is used to assess contractor performance. Over time these maps have been able to provide increasingly accurate possum density data.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 267

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

3 Financial Overview

3.1 Financial and Activity Summary Item 12 Item

The financial expenditure for the pest animal activity in the 2009-19 LTP has been summarised in four project groups.

Table 1: Summary of the 2016-17 LTP RPAMS LTCCP Projects LTCCP Budget ($) Possum Control Operations (PCO) $3,542,873 Rook Control and Management $144,767 Animal Strategy: Statutory Pest Programmes $148,904 Animal Strategy: Audit and monitor $138,929 Total LTP Budget $3,975,473

3.2 Expenditure Summary

The Possum Control Operation (PCO) project, relates to all operational and management work in the 2016-17 Possum Control Operation programme. The Rook Control and Management project reflects all aerial and ground operational work planned for the coming year.

AnnexA The Statutory Pest Programmes budget is for costs associated with enquiries that are received in the ‘Frontline database during the year. The majority of the Audit and monitor project incorporates possum trend monitoring work for the PCO programme.

3.3 Targeted Rates Reserves

The operational make-up of the PCO programme is a mixture of maintenance, initial and ex- TBfree NZ areas or operations. Each of these programmes has a different budgeted cost of delivery. An initial operation may cost $15-20 per hectare while a maintenance operation can be as low as $2 per hectare. The mix of these operations varies from year to year; consequently the operational budget can also vary slightly in accordance with these variations.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 268

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

4 Possums ($3,542,873)

4.1 Overview Item 12 Item The 2016-17 year is the 11th year of Horizons’ Possum Control Operation (PCO). In this year’s PCO, we will add a further 55,985 ha to the programme, bringing the total area to 1,252,099 ha. The operational work will be undertaken by the Horizons Regional Response Team (RRT) and external service providers, the split being approximately 44% of hectares to be controlled by the RRT and 56% by external contractors. All operational work is in line with the objectives in the Possum Control Operations Implementation Plan 2006-07.

4.2 Performance Measures

Table 2: Performance measures and targets – PCO Performance Measures Target Comments

Complete possum control in 85 operational 5 initial plus 80 Control will involve a combination of areas by 30 June 2016. maintenance trapping, shooting and poisoning work. Sample of new (initial) PCOs to have <10% RTC possum populations at or below 10% residual trap catch (RTC). Sampling carried out to RTC protocol or carried out using alternative approved Sample of ex-TBfree NZ and existing PCOs methodology (e.g., wax tags). to have possum populations at or below 5% <5% RTC AnnexA RTC. Record all inputs associated with the management and control of possums in the PCOs including: Data to be collected and recorded via  Inputs maps Record Global Positioning Systems (GPS), inputs  Input / habitat ratio of consumables and reports.  Inputs (labour & consumables)  Medical Officer of Health approvals 18-plus Monitoring will provide information to help Undertake RTC monitors. operations assess the effectiveness of the programme. Includes both physical ground auditing of Undertake operational audits to ensure 10% (8-9) control methods and a review of compliance with operational and contract operations administrative processes e.g., GPS data, standards. reports etc (desktop audits).

1

Table 3: PCO milestones Milestone Target F/Cast Comment (Ha) (Ha) Life to Date (Year 11) PCO target 1,160,000 1,252,099 92,099 ha ahead the 2006-07 forecast

At the time of preparing this Operational Plan (June 2016 there has been a change in the level of activity signalled by OSPRI for their possum management programme in the region. Understanding these potential changes and what, if any, response Horizons will make is a key focus for the year. As discussed in the monitoring section of the report, a further activity of this programme will be a report on the first 10 years of the programme and the results from it including a review of the monitoring data for the programme. Some operational funding from this activity may be utilised to resource the preparation of this report.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 269

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

5 Rooks ($144,767)

This year’s work programme will be similar to the 2015-16 programme. A systematic aerial

Item 12 Item nest baiting campaign will be followed by targeted ground control work. The aerial work targets breeding rookeries with control likely to commence in early October and run into November 2016. Prior to implementing the aerial work, ground and aerial surveys will be undertaken to establish the optimum time to carry out the work. During the ground surveys all inactive rookeries recorded over the past five seasons will be revisited to establish whether birds have returned to these sites, which will save helicopter flying time. Aerial work involves the application of DRC 1339 poison (mixed into petroleum jelly) to the rim of active breeding nests. This method has a proven track record and has substantially reduced rook populations across the Region. Similar results have been experienced by other Regional Councils using the aerial baiting technique. This will be the 11th year consecutive year that all breeding rookeries in the Region have been treated. A limited number of ground control operations will be undertaken during the

summer/autumn months targeting birds that are feeding on crops and young grass

paddocks. This year we plan to use the recently registered ‘macaroni’ bait. Where previous programmes have signalled a goal of eradication of rooks from the region the draft pest plan has redefined the management objective as ‘progressive containment species’. This has been done in acknowledgement of the difficulty of achieving eradication

AnnexA in the region where there is migration in from neighbouring regions.

5.1 Performance Measures

Table 4: Performance Measures and Targets – Rooks Performance Measures Target Comments Helicopter nest baiting control will be undertaken in the breeding season. The Undertake control operations in results of this work will be recorded and all breeding rookeries Approx. 200 nests reported in the end of year monitoring report. throughout the Region This report to be completed by December 2016. Ground baiting techniques will be implemented during the summer/autumn cropping season. Undertake ground operations 80% efficacy Post-operational reports will be prepared following the completion of all ground work. All rookeries and ground operation locations to Breeding rookery database to Record have a GPS waypoint with a unique site be updated by 30 January 2017 number.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 270

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

6 Pest Animal Response/Amenity Pest ($148,904)

Horizons receive a large number of enquiries from landowners across the Region relating to

pest animal issues each year. Enquiries numbers can range between 650 to 750 per 12 Item annum. Most enquiries received relate to ‘nuisance’ animals (possums; mustelids; rabbits etc) in the ‘amenity’ type situations, i.e. around lifestyle blocks, gardens etc. In these situations, Horizons animal pest staff provide advice on control techniques and supply loan traps to landowners. We also receive a number of complaints about pests (mainly rabbits) spreading from neighbours’ properties and causing problems. In these situations ground inspections and discussions with affected landowners are required, and if the problem is unable to be resolved, enforcement options can be used. All enquiries are recorded into the Frontline database and the aim is to respond to them all within two working days of receipt. All actions taken in regard to the enquiries are recorded in Frontline and are summarised in the bi-monthly Environmental Committee Report. A summary of the full year’s enquiries (with pest type/GPS location) is summarised in the end of year Pest Animal Strategy

Monitoring Report.

6.1 Performance Measures

Table 5: Performance measures and targets – Amenity Pests Performance Measures Comments AnnexA HRC staff will respond to requests within two working Action public enquiries and complaints and respond to days of receipt of the enquiry. HRC will provide requests for information or assistance (all enquiries to customers with advice on control methods and supply be responded to within 48 hours). All actions to be traps (on a loan basis) and limited amounts of poison recorded in the Frontline database. material. HRC may undertake discretionary control of these pests, on a case by case basis. Initiate appropriate enforcement action against land Standard operating procedures to be followed. Ensure occupiers who do not comply with strategy rules. full compliance with Strategy rules. Ensure that information on control methods for amenity Individual animal pest fact sheets are to be updated as pests is available on the HRC website. required. Refer to NPCA website where appropriate.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 271

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

7 Monitoring ($138,929)

The majority of the monitoring budget is used to trend monitor the effectiveness of the PCO.

Item 12 Item In some years rabbit populations are surveyed and along with RHD immunity levels. Some monitoring is also undertaken to assess levels of non-statutory animal pests to determine their presence and/or distribution in the region. Such surveillance provides Council with valuable information on population trends and is an important part of the decision making process as to whether new pests should be considered for inclusion into future Pest Management programmes. The Frontline database is used to record the majority of non-statutory pests. Annex E provides further information on the monitoring of the possum programme and the methodologies used. As the programme has now completed 10 years and is entering its 11th year it is timely to compile a report of the monitoring data to date and what it shows for the programme. This will build on the report completed after five years of the programme, the ‘Halfway there’ report. This report on the monitoring data will also review the monitoring methodologies and additional monitoring may be undertaken. In order to complete this work some funds from operational works may be utilised to complete this reporting. The report

will be utilised to inform future decisions around the programe including Operational Plan development.

7.1 Performance Measures AnnexA Table 6: Performance Measures and Targets - Monitoring Performance Measures Comment:

Possum Control Operation: Monitors will be carried out using accepted industry protocols and approved operators. Undertake wax tag possum monitors in selected PCO operational areas. A minimum of 18 monitors will be undertaken. Results will be assessed against the operational targets i.e. <5% RTC for ex-TBfree operations and <10%RTC for HRC initiated operations. Undertake rabbit night counts on predetermined count routes across the Region to establish No counts will be undertaken in the 2016-17 year trends in rabbit populations. Undertake a blood sample of rabbits in the Region to assess prevalence of rabbit No RHD sampling will be undertaken in the 2016-17 year. haemorrhagic disease (200-300 samples to be taken). Rook Monitoring: The rook database will be reviewed and all new sites Undertake inspections of known/new rookeries to added during the year will be inspected. Also past assess presence/absence of birds prior to the ‘inactive’ sites will be revisited to ensure that birds have aerial control work. not returned.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 272

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

8 Annex A: Summary of Possum Control Operations

Table 7: PCO areas 2016-17

MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS Item 12 Item Operational Name Hectares Service Provider Akitio (East section) 9,662 JJS Pest Control Ltd Apiti 11,921 Baytrap Ltd Ballance 11,078 Horizons RRT Bunnythorpe 19,331 M&M Contractors Cheltenham 10,502 M&M Contractors Coastal Bulls 16,955 KB Environmental Services Coastal Foxton 11,041 Horizons RRT Coastal Sanson 12,550 Horizons RRT Eketahuna 17,744 Horizons RRT Fordell 11,508 Horizons RRT Halcombe 6,088 Horizons RRT

Haunui 7,922 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd

Horowhenua 7,472 Central Districts Pest Control Ltd Hunterville 8,536 KB Environmental Services Kairanga 18,443 Horizons RRT

Kaweka 11,364 Baytrap Ltd AnnexA Kawhatau 7,187 M&M Contractors Kimbolton 7,666 Horizons RRT Koeke 7,168 Horizons RRT Kohinui 12,499 JJS Pest Control Ltd Kokomiko 8,303 Horizons RRT Kumeroa 10,251 Horizons RRT Leedstown 12,202 Central Districts Pest Control Ltd Levin 9,554 Horizons RRT Linton 18,417 Horizons RRT Makahou 12,886 Horizons RRT Makino 12,767 Horizons RRT Makuri A 7,594 Central Districts Pest Control Ltd Makuri B 8,709 JJS Pest Control Ltd Mangamahu 13,080 Horizons RRT Mangarere 13,325 KB Environmental Services Ltd Mangaweka 12,377 Baytrap Ltd Marangai 10,320 KB Environmental Services Ltd Marima 11,214 Central Districts Pest Control Ltd Marton 14,924 Horizons RRT Matahiwi 13,222 KB Environmental Services Ltd Matamau West 10,923 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Mataroa 8,890 Horizons RRT Maunga 11,741 Horizons RRT

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 273

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS

Operational Name Hectares Service Provider Maxwell 5,363 Horizons RRT Mokai 8,671 KB Environmental Services Ltd

Item 12 Item Morikau 9,467 Xpest Ltd Nga Rata 7,102 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Ohutu 10,024 Horizons RRT Oporae East 13,249 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Oringi 13,041 Horizons RRT Oroua 13,136 Horizons RRT Otairi 13,351 Horizons RRT Papaiti 9,171 KB Environmental Services Ltd Para Para 12,394 Horizons RRT Pipipi 5,351 Horizons RRT Pohonui 7,435 Baytrap Ltd Pongaroa 14,120 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Raetihi Buffer Stage 2 15,631 Horizons RRT

Ratana 7,025 Horizons RRT Rongomai 6,800 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Rongotea 16,500 Horizons RRT Ruaroa 12,396 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd

AnnexA Sandon B 5,790 M&M Contractors South Mokai 9,028 Horizons RRT Tane Kaitawa 10,272 M&M Contractors Tararua Ground 7,367 Horizons RRT Tatu Haeo 9,681 Horizons RRT Tautane 5,895 KB Environmental Services Ltd Te Hekenga 8,593 KB Environmental Services Ltd Te Komai 10,291 KB Environmental Services Ltd Toe Toe 6,267 KB Environmental Services Ltd Tokirima 9,153 Horizons RRT Tokomaru 15,512 Horizons RRT Totara 9,219 KB Environmental Services Ltd Umutoi 12109 M&M Contractors Waihi Valley 7,962 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Waihoki 11,892 Puketoi Pest Control Ltd Waikaka South 15,738 Horizons RRT Waimarino Pipipi 899 KB Environmental Services Ltd Waitaanga 3,232 Horizons RRT West Raetihi 4,417 Horizons RRT Whakarongo 11,052 M&M Contractors Whetukura 18,793 Horizons RRT Woodville 16,136 Horizons RRT Total Maintenance 856,860

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 274

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

NEW (INITIAL) OPERATIONS Operational Name Hectares Provider Atene 5,971 Horizons RRT

Lismore 13,002 To be tendered (External Providers) 12 Item Paparangi 10,179 Horizons RRT Whangamomona 26,833 To be tendered (External Providers) Total Initial 55,985

DEFERRED OPERATIONS Operational Name Hectares Reason Deferred Akitio Eastern 7,683 Low RTC Branscombe 11,218 Low RTC Branscombe Coast 8,008 Low RTC Coastal Kai Iwi 9,761 Low RTC Coastal Turakina 14,786 Low RTC Creek 5,446 Deferred Aerial

East Alfredton 6,344 Low RTC

East Pahiatua 6,785 Low RTC Eketahuna South 11,965 Low RTC Himatangi 19,077 Low RTC

Hokio 9,958 Low RTC AnnexA Kai Iwi 7,366 Low RTC Makirikiri 11,234 Low RTC Mangahoe 7,626 Low RTC Mangaone West 7,078 Low RTC Matamau South 6,847 Low RTC Mt Stewart 5,728 Low RTC Norsewood 12,892 Low RTC Oporae (West) 10,287 Low RTC Otope 13,185 Low RTC Puka 7,640 Low RTC Pukeokahu 15,724 Low RTC Rangatira 8,760 Low RTC Sandon A 6,732 Low RTC Shannon 8,258 Low RTC Taihape Buffer South 3,113 Low RTC Tiriraukawa 7,887 Low RTC Turakina Valley 16,508 Low RTC Waikaka 11,007 Low RTC Waimarino 12,552 Deferred Aerial Waione 12,117 Low RTC Waitarere 5,769 Low RTC Waituna West 6,100 Low RTC Weber 14,459 Low RTC

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 275

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

DEFERRED OPERATIONS

Operational Name Hectares Reason Deferred Whangaehu 9,354 Low RTC Total Deferred 339,254

Item 12 Item

SUMMARY OF ALL OPERATIONS Operation Type Area (ha) Total Maintenance 856,860 Total Initial 55,985 Total Deferred 339,254 Total Area PCO 2016-17 1,252,099

AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 276

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

9 Annex B: PCO Map 2016-17

Item 12 Item

AnnexA

Map 2: Possum Control Operations 2016-17

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 277

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

10 Annex C: Rook Map 2014-15

12

Item

AnnexA

Map 3: Rook (rookeries) distribution map following the 2015 aerial programme

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 278

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

11 Annex D: RPAMS objectives and means of achievement

Rules and Management regulations Animal Main Means of Achievement Objective in the

RPAMS 12 Item Rook Eradication Species-led Service Delivery  Possum Suppression Species-led Service Delivery  Feral Rabbit Suppression Species-led, occupier control  Stoat Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Ferret Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Weasel Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Koi/European Carp Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Gambusia Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Brown bull-headed Catfish Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Rudd Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Feral Cat Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Feral Eastern Rosella Site-led Site-led Service Delivery  Dama Wallaby Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Banjo Frog Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Feral Rainbow Lorikeet Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Gudgeon Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Marron Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management 

The Clubbed Tunicate Sea Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  AnnexA Squirt Chinese Mitten Crab Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Mediterranean Fanworm Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Northern Pacific Seastar Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  European Shore Crab Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Asian Clam Surveillance Surveillance and small scale management  Feral Goat Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Red Deer Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Sika Deer Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Sambar Deer Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Fallow Deer Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Feral Pig Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Hare Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Rat species Site-led Site-led Service Delivery European Hedgehog Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Magpie Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Feral Sulphur Crested Site-led Site-led Service Delivery Cockatoo Peafowl Suppression Voluntary Self-Help Groups

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 279

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

12 Annex E: Inputs Based Contracting

Horizons Regional Council’s Possum Control Operations (PCO) programme is reliant on the concept of management of inputs. This section discusses this innovative approach to Item 12 Item possum control in the Region.

12.1 Monitoring of Possums

Since the adoption of wide-scale contestability in the possum control industry, pest managers have been in search of an effective and affordable performance monitoring system. In the absence of any alternative, the Residual Trap Catch Index (RTCI or RTC) has been the standard for all performance monitors. Following the receipt and adoption on recommendations in the ‘Half Way There’ report (a report reviewing the first five years of the PCO) we have moved exclusively to wax tag monitoring. This system uses a prescribed formula to determine the number of randomly selected wax lines that are needed to sample performance. Lines consisting of 10 wax tags are ‘set’ following the control efforts of a service provider. Factors influencing the number of wax lines used are the hectares involved and vegetation or habitat type. The performance level is determined by counting the number of possums bite marks on the tags and expressing them as a percentage relative to the RTC index. Using such a definitive measure allows contract managers to apply performance targets

AnnexA prior to work taking place. Targets of 5%, 10%, 3% and even 1% or 2% RTC are common in possum control contracts. With the adoption of industry protocols for the planning and execution of monitors using RTC, a very robust and consistent system has been implemented across New Zealand and is used by all major agencies involved in possum control. However, the RTC system is not without fault. Many in the industry question the accuracy of results below 5% RTC. As a solitary performance measure, RTCs do not effectively indicate the level of skill or effort applied by the service provider in some programmes. Service providers are paid on successful RTC outcome and this encourages the provider to look for the quickest way to comply (beat the monitor) and not necessarily for the best outcome for achieving low uniform pest densities. Because all jobs require monitoring for payment, cost can be comparatively high, with some small jobs having monitor costs equal to or even higher to control cost. Traditionally, a failed monitor requires a rework and a further monitor until the target is met or the contract with the service provider is terminated. These reworks are often initiated by the monitor catching one possum too many. The resulting rework and monitor regularly incurs costs of tens of thousands of dollars. There is a disincentive for service providers to openly discuss or highlight areas of concern where possum numbers are still high and not detected by a monitor.

12.2 Inputs Monitored Contracts

RTC monitoring is at its best when used for setting targets in service contracts and for providing evidence that a target has or has not been reached. Following the system faithfully

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 280

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

can reduce the reliance on an increasingly scarce technical resource and replace it with

contract management skills. Where these technical and management skills do exist there is an alternative monitor system.

Input monitoring relies on identifying all the needed elements for success in an operation 12 Item and ensuring they have been applied. Much is known these days about what is needed to achieve successful outcomes with possum control. We know there are methods and strategies that if applied correctly will achieve specific outcomes. The key to success is matching the right method and resources to the right operational situation. A situation can be created where the pest manager and service provider agree on an operational plan prior to a contract being set. This allows all inputs to be quantified with an audit system put in place to assure agreed effort and resources are being appropriately applied. In some cases maps can be produced to prescribe where control device locations should be. On completion of input delivery the service provider is paid. It is ultimately the responsibility

of the pest manager to decide what methods and inputs are applied. The pest manager takes responsibility for the outcome by ensuring the service provider has delivered with best endeavour, in full, on time and within budget. This system also encourages both parties to talk about problem areas. In situations where

funding did not allow complete or thorough enough coverage, there is an open and AnnexA transparent system to target this area in the following year. This is a very pragmatic solution to gathering data efficiently, which can be otherwise a very expensive exercise using RTC. If there is a genuine desire for pest managers and service providers to work in partnership developing successful programmes then input monitoring clearly facilitates this. The contractor has no need to build in contingencies for RTC failure and can commit all resources to the target pest reduction in the operation. The contractor also has better ability to forecast capacity issues. The system allows a very high proportion of the budget to be used for control. All the performance measures for service providers can be catered for by inputs monitoring. From time to time data on possum density trends is needed and it would appear RTC monitoring would still be the best option to provide this. However, because a programme trend only is required, a reduced sampling programme (i.e., not all jobs) will provide this. It is important where multiple targets are sought that sampling is carried out for each target strata. Recent developments in monitoring have introduced wax tag and chew card monitoring as an alternative to trapping. Simply put, these methods use tags or cards that are bitten by possums. A follow up inspection confirms possum bite and indicates presence or absence of the pest. This is more helpful in determining pest spread (range) rather than density. The advantages of working with light-weight tags and cards are obvious and relatively inexpensive when compared to trapping. Data from wax tags/chew cards can be captured electronically using GIS and displayed to good effect on maps showing historic, current and future trends.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 281

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

12.3 Summary

The monitoring system adopted by Horizons for the PCO programme is inputs based. A combination of audit systems is in place to inform Horizons Pest Managers of the service

provider’s effort and application in each job. GPS downloads into Horizons’ GIS system Item 12 Item capture control device location and visits and daily kill reports, operational plans, post operational reports and technical reviews while field audits fill in any other gaps in performance management. Some RTC monitoring is carried out with a minimum of 10% of all jobs monitored, thus ensuring the targets of keeping all ex TBfree NZ jobs under 5% RTC and all other jobs in the programme under 10% RTC are on track. All monitoring is now carried out with wax tags instead of traps. Horizons management sees potential in reporting pest spread (range). GIS maps have been prepared to accept the data and trial this form of reporting. This methodology provides a good mix of monitoring techniques to deliver relevant and timely information in a cost effective manner. Horizons was an early adopter of inputs monitoring and believes it has delivered. This method will become very prevalent in the pest industry.

Horizons will continue to explore new and innovative ways to monitor performance and outcomes.

AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 282

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

PLANTS

13 Introduction 12 Item

13.1 Background

Under the Biosecurity Act 1993, Horizons Regional Council (Horizons) has prepared the Manawatu-Wanganui Region’s fifth Regional Plant Pest Management Strategy (RPPMS). The Strategy outlines work programmes for 61 individual pest plant species of Regional significance. The current strategy took effect on 24 September 2007. The Strategy outlines how each pest plant will be managed over a five-year period (until 1 July 2012, though since rolled over until completion of the new Regional Pest Management Plan which is currently in progress). Responsibility for control work lies with Horizons Regional Council, Ministry of Primary Industry (MPI) and land occupiers. Horizons Regional Council has responsibilities to ensure land occupiers are aware of and meet their obligations for pest management on their properties, and Horizons will undertake direct pest control where there is clear justification and regional benefit.

Under section 85 of the Biosecurity Act, the management agency for a pest management strategy must prepare an annual Operational Plan. The plan must be reviewed and reported on annually, no later than five months after the end of each financial year. Copies of the Operational Plan and the report on its implementation must be made available to the public.

This document is the eighth Operational Plan to be prepared under the current RPPMS. AnnexA Each pest plant officer has detailed action plans, with specified Key Result Areas (KRAs) related to this Operational Plan. Operational Plans are reviewed annually in a separate monitoring report. This Operational Plan is the first as combined animal and plant plan to be prepared under the new RPAMS. The first section is the Operational Plan for animals and the second section is the plants Operational Plan. At the time this Operational Plan was written (June 2016) the council were well advanced in the review of the Combined Regional Pest Management Plan and Strategy and it is acknowledged that some changes to the Operational Plan may be required after the Plan and Strategy are formally adopted.

13.2 Explanation of Management Programmes

This Operational Plan outlines the nature and scope of activities Horizons intends to undertake in the implementation of the RPPMS for the 2014-15 financial year. Performance measures and other targets by which performance can be judged by Council are identified.

13.3 Purpose of the Operational Plan

The activities that make up the implementation component of the Regional Pest Plant Management Strategy are summarised as follows: . Horizons funds and organises control for 13 plant species across the entire region and a further 11 plant species inside of individually specified control areas for regional benefit. Sixteen plants are managed under the Production Plant Species programme using boundary control and zero-density objectives and nine plants have been selected for investigation under the Potential Pest Plant programme. . Regulation (enforcement) – Rules and restrictions are set, and compliance enforced with appropriate processes and penalties, including the recovery of costs incurred.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 283

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

. Biological control – Horizons will give financial and logistical support to research into additional biocontrol agents and if new agents become available, they will be released. Wherever practical, Horizons will continue to release and redistribute appropriate agents for the control of production and environmental pest plants. Existing sites are monitored for continuing viability. Regular liaison with occupiers occurs to ensure the

Item 12 Item ongoing success of biological control release sites. . Surveillance – Inspections of potential infestation areas will take place region-wide for high threat plants not presently known in the region. Horizons will monitor for, and act to eradicate, any infestation of the surveillance species to prevent production and natural areas being adversely affected. Horizons will also survey retail outlets to ensure that regulations banning plants from propagation, distribution and sale by the RPPMS and the National Pest Plant Accord (NPPA) are complied with. Surveillance will also be carried out for notifiable plants and any discoveries made will be reported to MPI. . Awareness and behaviour change – Advice is given to raise awareness of pest problems and to provide land occupiers with information to control their own pests. This includes explaining people’s obligations under the Strategy and responding to complaints and enquiries from the public. Our goal is to have an initial response to a complaint within two working days of the complaint being received. Awareness programmes will be organised and outcomes focused on changing people’s behaviour, eg, responsible gardening and freshwater hygiene.

1 AnnexA

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 284

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

14 Pest Plant Programme Information

14.1 Introduction

The 2007 RPPMS assigns named pest plants into two main programmes, Production Pest 12 Item Plants and Environmental Pest Plants. Another programme of surveillance includes plants not yet present in the Region. This Operational Plan reflects the key priorities for pest plant management established through the RPPMS. The prioritised roles that Horizons Regional Council sees for itself include: . Identifying plants that fall under the zero-density objectives, recording spatial information about them, and their control; . Public liaison, including awareness and education programmes, developing community group initiatives and responding to complaints and enquiries from the public; . Enforcement of the Strategy rules, particularly boundary control of production pests, to prevent adverse effects of pest plants on the occupiers of clear properties; . Biocontrol work when suitable agents are available, as this offers the prospect of ongoing control without the ongoing costs of physical control; and

. Carry out surveillance to facilitate early detection of invading species. Monitor and

assess identified potential environmental pest plants and undertake surveillance reporting, and necessary enforcement, as part of the National Pest Plant Accord agreement. There are six Natural Resource and Partnership Officers - Plants (NRPOPs) and one Natural Resource and Partnership Coordinator – Pest Plants, in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region. They have primary responsibility for inspection, enforcement, advisory and AnnexA monitoring activities. The NRPOPs are also responsible for organising contractors to carry out control work on zero-density plants and enforcement work. Contractors undertake treatment or remedial work, although isolated plants and smaller sites may be treated or removed by NRPOPs. The responsibility for control of pest plants can lie with a range of different organisations or land occupiers within the Region. Horizons funds control of high threat pest plants with limited distribution across the Region via the zero-density designation. Plants of similar high threat, but of greater density and distribution, are assigned containment zones where work is only undertaken outside the higher density containment zones in their respective control areas. Plants that are widespread across the Region are subject to boundary control and voluntary action is encouraged for all plants.

14.2 Standards and Enforcement

The principal objectives for pest plants identified in the Strategy are Zero-Density, Containment, Boundary Control and Monitoring. If the associated plant-specific rules are not met, an authorised person will: 1. Advise the occupier of their non-compliance and direct them to take remedial actions; 2. Follow the initial inspection with a further inspection to confirm what remedial action has been taken and/or identify outstanding requirements. In circumstances of non-compliance, the authorised person will utilise the administrative and enforcement provisions of the Act.

1

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 285

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

15 Financial Overview

15.1 Financial

Item 12 Item Table 2: Financial overview of RPPMS – 2016-17 Programme 2016-17 Annual Plan Budget Zero-density/Containment 862,241 Production Pest Plants 188,702 Vector Corridors 40,368 Surveillance Pest Plants 93,388 Biocontrol 128,380 Pest Plant Awareness 117,113 Incursion 6,539 Pest Plant National Initiatives 10,000 Total $1,446,731

Every effort is being made to deliver on the RPPMS targets and outcomes while operating within this budget. Close monitoring of expenditure will ensure budgets are not exceeded.

15.2 Targeted Rates Reserves

The expenditure on pest plant programmes can vary from budget on a year to year basis. AnnexA These variations can be caused by such factors as adverse seasonal conditions or unusually high levels of infestations. When these events occur, the adverse budgetary impact can be funded using targeted rates reserves, if any exist. Any call up4 of any targeted rates reserves is subject to approval from Council and its Audit and Risk Committee. Formal approval for such a transaction (if required) will be sought from this Committee as the works programme unfolds during the year.

4 Call up of targeted rate: a proportion of pest plant expenditure is funded via a targeted rate on properties over 4 ha. Annual surpluses (or deficits) are kept in reserve and can be “called up” and used to fund future pest plant projects.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 286

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16 Implementation of Programmes 12

16.1 Zero-Density Item Item

16.1.1 Introduction

Due to region-wide habitat losses and changing land use, our indigenous species, landscapes and habitats are further threatened by, and highly vulnerable to, pest plants. Environmental pest plants in general are widespread throughout the Region. The Region’s biodiversity is threatened by pest plants that cause the collapse of forest canopies, smother regeneration in natural areas, invade alpine and tussock land, degrade wetlands and clog waterways. This programme covers pest plant species that threaten the terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity and other natural areas of the Region. The environmental pest plant programme incorporates a number of objectives in order to manage the species included within this programme. These objectives are: . Zero-Density – all individuals of the plant are destroyed across the entire region; . Containment – Where population levels or difficulty and expense of control prevent

achievement of a region wide zero-density objective, high-threat pest plant species will be managed under a containment objective. For each species managed this way, a control area is defined within which the pest plant species will be controlled wherever it is found, as per the zero-density designation.

16.1.2 Performance Measures AnnexA

Table 3: Zero-Density pest plant performance measures Measuring achievement Target The investigating EMOPs will record work done and Reduce plant numbers to zero of each infestation in its infestation size in the corporate database, WEEDS. Control area. Zero-Density plants (Environmental) Actions required 1. Confirm annual programmes of control. 2. Organise work staff programme or contractors to All Zero-Density and Containment designated plants undertake control at the appropriate time. 3. Inspect control sites to evaluate control. Record results in corporate database.

16.1.3 Planned activity

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity TERRESTRIAL PEST PLANTS We will continue the current programme of survey, control and delimit historic sites. This plant requires a long term approach to To control to zero- control, with site management moving from initial control to Banana density within the maintenance and then monitoring for a number of years. Areas of passionfruit control area by 2017. note are the Matahiwi section of the Whanganui river, sites in the Tararua, sites in and around Levin and the Totara Reserve and Ruahine buffer zones. The one confirmed site in the Region exists on Wanganui District Reduce all populations Council land. The RPPMS requires that WDC control the site. The of blue-leaved wattle in Blue-leaved wattle WDC has completely eliminated this site through physical and the Region to zero- chemical control. The small amount of root re-growth on site is density by 2009. treated with chemicals on a regular basis.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 287

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity

To control to zero- Blue passion density all blue passion There are a small number of urban sites being treated on an flower flower within the control as/when found rationale. area by 2011.

Item 12 Item This plant will continue to persist at historic sites due to its large To control to zero- seed bank and seed longevity. We aim to keep all known sites at density all boneseed zero-density but due to quick growth the odd adult is usually found Boneseed within the control area within the site and bird dispersal of berries requires area wide by 2012. delimiting. Hot spots include the beach settlements near Levin, and coastal Wanganui. We expect site numbers to remain stable and the majority of sites To control to zero- will continue to have excellent control with reducing plant density all cathedral populations. We will continue to treat sites with multiple visits per Cathedral bells bells within the control season to arrest seedling production. Cathedral bells is a prolific area by 2011. seed producer and flowers within a few months of germinating – thus requiring early and late season control operations. To control to zero- Chilean rhubarb density all Chilean We expect to find a small number of new sites in gardens and in plus hybrids and rhubarb in the Region wild areas. All sites will be managed as they are found. varieties by 2010. To control to zero- The majority of sites are now at zero-density. The potential for Climbing density all climbing mass suckering is high and sites require long-term control.

spindleberry spindleberry in the Historic sites across the Region are showing low level re-growth Region by 2011. which is pleasing. To control contorta pine Contorta control will continue this year similar to previous years to zero-density within though with more resources allocated to the priority sites. We are the control area by at the tail end of controlling a significant number of sites around 2012. Waiouru with only one mixed species shelter belt remaining. We AnnexA will again have another significant effort on Ohinewairua station. Initial knock down of We will also liaise with the occupiers of Karioi forest regarding the contorta pine as existing rules and long term management of the mixed species directed under stand Horizons’ 2001 RPPMS Contorta pine is to be completed by The Nature Central initiative is also a significant driver for 2007, with the efficiency and coordination between the NZ Defence Force, exception of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council and DOC. Horizons will advocate to occupier of Karioi broaden the group to include WRC and other parties. Forest. One programme of pragmatic handover We will financially support the National Wilding Conifer of harvested areas Management Group and provide a staff member on the executive. continues in the forests at Erua, Tongariro National Park, Taurewa We will facilitate ongoing activity of the Central North Island and Lake Otamangakau Wilding Conifer Group. To control to zero- We will continue to liaise with DOC to run a coordinated Darwin’s density all Darwin’s Darwin’s barberry barberry programme in the Waimarino. It is also a priority in the barberry within the north around Waimiha and along both sides of the Ruahine spine. control area by 2014. To control to zero- density all evergreen Evergreen buckthorn is proving difficult to eradicate from the peri- buckthorn within the urban areas due to bird dispersal and the difficulty in finding this plant in the early establishment phase. We plan to continue the Evergreen control area by 2014. approach to date with control over the winter and early spring buckthorn Maintain a 5 km wide when the plant is more easily distinguished from other plants. buffer around Control will focus on areas adjacent to the urban infestations in the Wanganui city free of first instance. evergreen buckthorn. To control to zero- Work on this plant will again be restricted to ‘wilding’ sites, and density all currently Ginger - Kahili and further restricted to sites of high priority, due to budget constraints. known populations of Yellow There are many sites of this plant in the large urban areas of ginger in the Region by Wanganui and Palmerston North. 2011.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 288

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity

To control to zero-

High priority sites within close proximity to the Tongariro National 12 density all grey willow Grey willow Park/Lake Otamangakau, and specifically the boundary with within the control area Waikato Regional Council, will continue to receive control. by 2014.

To control to zero- Item density all heather The heather programme will be diminished this year to reflect the Heather within the control area recommendation to remove heather from management. by 2011. Reduce all populations We are confident we have achieved zero-density and as we now Knotweed - of knotweeds in the have an effective chemical tool for the long term management of Asiatic and Giant Region to zero-density knotweed sites we look forward to the eventual eradication of this by 2009. plant from the Region. This plant has the potential to rapidly expand within the Region if To control to zero- average temperatures increase, so getting on top of it before it density all moth plant Moth plant begins to expand its range is a high priority. The small number of within the control area sites in our Region will be monitored and controlled. The majority by 2013. of sites exist in Wanganui, Palmerston North and Foxton. OMB control is one of the larger work programmes undertaken by the pest plant team. There continues to be increasing discomfort from ratepayers about the levels of OMB in the containment To control to zero- zones. It is heartening that people are noticing OMB as a pest density all Old Man’s problem and would like action taken against it. The challenge for Old Man’s Beard Beard within the control the pest plant team is to keep the best practice approach of our area by 2022. programme models and to keep the community engaged. There is scope for community driven programmes gaining support and assistance from the team to establish best practice control and management plans. Reduce all currently We will continue to monitor and treat the Taumarunui waste water known populations of treatment site to ensure it remains at zero-density. There is a good AnnexA Alligator weed alligator weed in the understanding between the site managers to ensure fragments do Region to zero-density not leave the area and plants are not spread by mowing or by 2012. removal of vegetation. Reduce all known populations of We will continue to monitor the sole site in the Region as control to California bulrush California bulrush in the date has achieved zero-density. Region to zero-density by 2010. Reduce all known populations of purple All known sites will be treated this year. We have a well Purple loosestrife loosestrife in the established work plan for the largest site at Lake Horowhenua and Region to zero-density others are reducing to small populations. by 2012. Dispersal of aquatic Signage is present at the largest known site to alert people to the pest plant species from plant’s presence, that intentional spreading of the plant is banned, Eelgrass current locations is and what actions can be taken to prevent its spread (eg. clean, prevented. check, dry). Signage is present at known sites to alert people to the plant’s Dispersal of aquatic presence, that intentional spreading of the plant is banned, and pest plant species from what actions can be taken to prevent its spread (eg., clean, check, Hornwort current locations is dry). We will also share in the costs of the management of the prevented. weed cordon established at Lake Otamangakau to contain any hornwort fragments from launching boats. Dispersal of aquatic Signage is present at known sites to alert people to the plant’s pest plant species from presence, that intentional spreading of the plant is banned, and Egeria current locations is what actions can be taken to prevent its spread (eg., clean, check, prevented. dry). Dispersal of aquatic Signage is present at known sites to alert people to the plant’s pest plant species from presence, that intentional spreading of the plant is banned, and Lagarosiphon current locations is what actions can be taken to prevent its spread (eg., clean, check, prevented. dry).

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 289

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity

Dispersal of aquatic pest plant species from The full extent of this pest plant has not been determined at this Reed sweet grass current locations is stage, so will be the subject of a delimiting survey in future years.

prevented. Item 12 Item

16.2 Production

16.2.1 Introduction

The Region’s economy is heavily reliant on the agricultural sector and therefore it is essential that the RPPMS provides a regionally co-ordinated strategic and statutory framework for the management of production pest plants. The production pest plants covered by the RPPMS are largely those that have been carried through from historic legislation and remain of considerable concern to the farming community. While no new production pest plant species have established in New Zealand during the last 20 years, there are a number of species that the Region is currently free of and it is highly desirable to maintain this situation. The Production Pest Plant programme incorporates a number of objectives in order to manage the species included within this programme. These objectives are:

. Zero-Density – all individuals of the plant are destroyed. . Boundary control – landowners are required to prevent the spread of these species onto or across a common boundary. Horizons becomes involved on a complaint basis. . Biocontrol – one or more living organisms (eg., insect, fungus) is used to manage a

pest plant species by reducing its vigour and/or ability to reproduce. AnnexA

16.2.2 Performance Measures

Table 4: Production pest plant performance measures Measuring achievement Target The EMOPs will record in the corporate database Production land that is clear of pest plants the results of inspections, covering both extent of remains so. infestation and compliance with rules. Production Pest Plants Actions required 1. Control to zero-density region-wide. 2. Confirm annual programmes of control. African feather grass, Chinese pennisetum, nassella tussock, woolly nightshade 3. Organise contractors to undertake control at the appropriate time.

4. Inspect control sites to evaluate control. Record results in corporate database. Australian sedge, blackberry, broom, gorse, ragwort, tutsan, nodding thistle, variegated Enforce boundary rules on complaint. thistle

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 290

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Planned activity 16.2.3

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity 12 All active sites will be inspected and treated. The Whanganui River sites are diminishing

but require annual search and destroy in late Item Reduce all currently known summer. The Tararua stretch of the African feather populations of African feather Manawatu River is a hotspot that receives grass grass in the Region to zero- intensive monitoring and control at historic density by 2010. sites. Other sites in the lower Manawatu, Levin, Taihape, Manawatu District and Rangitikei District will all require retreating. Reduce the occurrence of We will respond to boundary complaints and Australian sedge Australian sedge spreading outwork the HORIZONS pest plant between properties. compliance programme if required. Reduce the occurrence of We will respond to boundary complaints and Blackberry blackberry spreading between outwork the HORIZONS pest plant properties. compliance programme if required. Reduce the occurrence of broom We will respond to boundary complaints and spreading between properties. outwork the HORIZONS pest plant compliance programme if required. Broom To maintain self-sustaining populations of biocontrol agents We will monitor the current release sites and for broom throughout the Region. transfer agents if numbers allow. To reduce the population of Chinese pennisetum to zero- The control programme will again continue density by 2027. with the farm owners and Horizons Chinese undertaking co-management of the pennisetum

Prevent the spread of Chinese infestations. The river infestations will receive AnnexA pennisetum into neighbouring control this year. properties.

We will respond to boundary complaints and Reduce the occurrence of gorse Gorse outwork the HORIZONS pest plant spreading between properties. compliance programme if required.

Nassella tussock Reduce all currently known More urban sites of this group are expected (Including the populations of Nassella tussock in from further delimiting of garden sites. There closely related the Region to zero-density by are garden sites in Taihape, Wanganui, Bulls, Mexican feather 2011. Woodville, Ohakune and Raurimu. grass) Reduce the occurrence of We will respond to boundary complaints and nodding thistle spreading outwork the HORIZONS pest plant between properties. compliance programme if required.

Nodding thistle To achieve self-sustaining We will monitor for any notable increase in the populations of biocontrol agents presence and effectiveness of biological for nodding thistle throughout the control agents. Region. We will respond to boundary complaints and Reduce the occurrence of ragwort outwork the HORIZONS pest plant spreading between properties. compliance programme if required.

Ragwort To maintain self sustaining We will monitor for any notable increase in the populations of biocontrol agents presence and effectiveness of biological for ragwort throughout the control agents. We will continue the Region. distribution of the ragwort plume moth.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 291

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Name RPPMS Objective(s) Planned activity

To reduce the occurrence of tutsan spreading from infested We will respond to boundary complaints and land to clean land. outwork the HORIZONS pest plant compliance programme if required.

Item 12 Item Reduce the spread of tutsan from Tutsan the Ruapehu District to elsewhere HORIZONS will continue to assist the Tutsan in the Region. Action Group (TAG) with their biological control agent project. This will involve

sponsorship and in-kind contributions to Investigate and support biocontrol ensure the group has a high national profile. options for tutsan. To reduce the occurrence of We will respond to boundary complaints and Variegated thistle variegated thistle spreading from outwork the HORIZONS pest plant infested land to clean land. compliance programme if required. We will continue control at historic sites and Reduce all populations of woolly delimit these areas for any bird dispersed Woolly nightshade nightshade in the Region to zero- plants that may have established. Hot spots density by 2010. are Wanganui, Turakina area, Herbertville and Levin.

16.3 Crown/non-rateable

16.3.1 Introduction Crown/non-rateable is the activity centre associated with managing Crown land, Territorial Local Authority (TLA) parcels and the road and rail networks of our Region. This cost centre was established as these networks cover large areas and are known vectors of pest plant spread. Vector corridors include management of plants under the Zero-Density, AnnexA Containment and Boundary designations where the infestations occur. There are five Central Government agencies that are significant beneficiaries/exacerbators of pest plant management in the Region (Kiwi Rail, NZ Transport Agency, DOC, NZ Defence, and Land Information New Zealand). Crown agencies are required to manage pest plants on the lands they administer in the interests of being a good neighbour, although the Crown cannot be bound to the RPPMS. All agencies have carried out works that are consistent with the RPPMS objectives and targets to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon resource availability. In addition to Crown agencies, there are seven TLAs within the Region. District and City Councils are required to carry out pest plant management pursuant to any RPPMS rule/objective on land they occupy/manage within their respective districts eg., road corridors.

16.3.2 Performance Measures Table 5: Vector corridor performance measures Plant designations Measuring achievement Target

Those Zero-Density Ensure boundary control is undertaken as necessary plants not requiring The EMOPs will record: specialist treatment or on all known problem areas All public complaints received, the monitoring. and valid complaint sites. result of investigations, and any That Memoranda of action taken. All Containment plants Understanding (MOUs) are

inside their control established with suitable areas. Sites of plants treated to zero- agencies that clearly density are controlled and outline the responsibilities recorded in the corporate of the various parties. database. That all control zone sites All plants that have an of Zero-Density and associated boundary Containment plants in rule. vector corridors are controlled.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 292

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16.3.3 Planned activity

Crown Land Agency/Area Planned activity 12 We will meet with TLAs to discuss their pest plant control operational plans as they relate to our RPPMS. Territorial Local Item Authorities (TLAs) We will ensure best practice and recent dispersal science is directed to real world scenarios and that ground-truthing of any potential outcomes can be achieved. Roads We will meet with the NZTA and its contractors to discuss their pest plant control operational plans as they relate to our RPPMS.

NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) We will ensure best practice and recent dispersal science is directed to real world scenarios and that ground-truthing of any potential outcomes can be achieved.

Kiwirail/Treescape (the agency tasked with We will meet with Kiwirail/Treescape to discuss their pest plant control Rail managing the rail operations as they relate to our RPPMS. corridor on behalf of Kiwi Rail)

We will liaise with LINZ and landowners to tackle any issues that arise Rangitikei River from the programmed maintenance of the corridor by LINZ. Manawatu River Only targeted zero-density work is planned for this river. Rivers Whanganui River Only targeted zero-density work is planned for this river. We will liaise with LINZ and landowners to tackle any issues that arise Pohangina River from the programmed maintenance of the corridor by LINZ. AnnexA We will meet with the Defence Force land managers to share information about relevant infestations. NZDF is a major party to the Nature Central New Zealand Waiouru, Ohakea Wilding Conifer Implementation Plan and therefore commits to Defence Force and Linton coordinating control programmes and sharing information. Other (NZDF) programmes of interest are the Desert Road Invasive Legume Control Project. We will meet with Karioi forest managers to discuss their programmes as Karioi they maintain ongoing control of contorta. Forestry Erua, Lake Blocks We will monitor the progress of contorta control in the LINZ owned blocks Otamangakau, and the forest owned by Rotoaira Forest Trust. and Taurewa

16.4 Surveillance

16.4.1 Introduction

There are a large number of pest plants in New Zealand that have the potential to expand their range and become a problem here. The Surveillance programme has been developed to assist early detection of new invasive species either arriving in the Region or expanding within the Region, thereby allowing action to take place before control becomes unachievable. The pest plants included in the Surveillance programme are: . Not currently present in the Region but are known to be a threat elsewhere and are likely to find a suitable habitat within the Region. Often these plants are to be found across the boundary in neighbouring regions; and . Already present in the Region but only in a limited area or confined to a small number of sites. This output contains the following projects: . Surveillance programme;

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 293

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

. Potential Environmental Pest Plants programme;

. National Pest Plant Accord (NPPA); and . MPI-managed notifiable plants.

Strategy objectives include: Item 12 Item . To detect new incursions of listed surveillance plants, and prevent their establishment in the Region; . Determine appropriate future management objectives for the listed potential plants; and . To prevent the propagation, sale and distribution of legislated plants.

16.4.2 Performance Measures

Table 6: Surveillance pest plant performance measures Measuring achievement Target Record sites discovered in corporate Notable encounters of significant pest database. plants will be reported on to Council and Determine appropriate control methods as included in the Operational Plan report. plants identified. Inspect all nursery and plant outlets for the Advice on control measures will be made presence of Regional Surveillance pest available to the landowners. plants each year and carry out enforcement where appropriate. Surveillance Plants Actions required Arrowhead Bladderwort

AnnexA Chilean needle grass Heath rush Manchurian wild rice 1. Record all newly discovered and historic Noogoora bur sites in the corporate database and monitor as necessary. Phragmites 2. Undertake site management at historic Saffron thistle sites of: Senegal tea, arrowhead, and Sagittaria spartina. Senegal tea Spartina Sweet pittosporum Tussock hawkweed 1. Inspect all at-risk nursery outlets and advise and educate about National Pest Plants. Nursery inspections and the NPPA programme. 2. Monitor for notifiable plants as part of Surveillance programme. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand managed 3. Carry out enforcement action against notifiable plants. outlets that sell, propagate or distribute National and Regional Pest Plants. 4. Report incursions to MAF, BNZ. 1. Record and map all known infestations. 2. Research biology of plants. Potential Environmental Pest Plants programme. 3. Identify habitats at risk from the plants. 4. Report within timelines to determine management status.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 294

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16.4.3 Planned activity

Objective Planned activity 12 To increase detection rates of new pest plant A list of likely pest plant discovery, entry and/or species becoming established within the Region, distribution points (eg, along roads, old

or species with limited distribution expanding homestead sites, illegal garden waste dumping Item their range. sites) will be displayed spatially. To implement a systematic process whereby decisions and actions are taken following a Publish incursion action plan. discovery of a new species within the Region. Inspections will take place at priority sites and To continue to assist MPI with enforcement of results will be entered into the NPPA web- the National Pest Plant Accord (NPPA). database. Potential plant reports are completed. All reports have been finished.

16.4.4 Pest Plants Programmes outside RPPMS

Horizons has been involved in committing financial and time resources to plants not listed in the RPPMS. We will continue to proactively deal with ‘new’ issues that arise and seek to understand the extent of the problem, whether any intervention will be successful and who or which organisation should best manage the intervention.

As examples of this approach, staff undertook survey and control against velvetleaf as part of the National Biosecurity Capability Network (NBCBN) response to the 2015/16 fodder beet contamination. We have also previously investigated the presence and absence, and management options for yellow bristle grass (Setaria pumila). During 2016-17 we will continue to champion awareness and best practice management options with roading

authorities and farmers. We will present information at field days and in the press to AnnexA highlight best management practice of farmland adjacent to roadsides and pathway management, especially with respect to machinery hygiene.

16.5 Biocontrol

16.5.1 Introduction

Biological control or biocontrol has resulted in substantial pest plant management gains through the use of one living organism to control another. It has proven particularly useful for controlling widespread weeds that are well established, that are heavy seeders, or have large seed banks. Once the agents are well established there is generally no need to make further releases as the population disperses and becomes self-sustaining. However, it can take many years (decades even) for the population to build up to a point where it impacts substantially on the host plant. It is worth noting that successful biocontrol does not usually eradicate its host. Success may mean a reduction of infestation size, vigour, or abundance into the foreseeable future. It should be viewed as a tool that complements other weed management options. Biocontrol may reduce population levels to a point where control using physical or chemical methods is minimised, or even unnecessary. The biocontrol programme exists to carry-out releases of new and existing agents against entrenched pests, raise awareness of the programme and support research into new agents.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 295

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16.5.2 Performance Measures

Table 7: Biological control performance measures Measuring achievement Target EMOPs will record in the corporate database Manage the successful release and

Item 12 Item all releases of biocontrol agents in the establishment of new agents. Region, their survival and their effects on the Manage existing agents for maximum effect. pest plants. Actions Required 1. Coordinate and manage new releases of biological control agents as they become available. 2. Record the new releases in the corporate database. 3. Establish, manage and record new biological control sites. 4. Report on agents managed, new releases and extent of establishment. 5. Continue to contribute funding to the national bioagent research/development programme.

16.5.3 Planned activity

Plant Agent Planned activity

Highlight the extensive spread of the weevil and monitor to assess any Buddleia Buddleia weevil

long lasting decline of plants. AnnexA

Boneseed Leaf roller No work planned as agent not established. OMB leaf fungus No work planned as agent not established. OMB leaf miner OMB sawfly No further work planned Old Man’s OMB flower gall Champion the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for release Beard midge of this agent into NZ. Coordinate funding from other supportive agencies to import beetles into OMB bark beetle containment and test against smaller sized natives and old mans beard. Estimated project cost of $60-65k Californian thistle No work planned. leaf beetle Californian Thistle No work planned; has failed to establish. flea beetle No work planned. A self-introduced agent which is now widespread in the Phoma Region. Limited host impact to date. Californian Thistle Californian thistle No work planned. This is a systemic rust fungus, which has self-introduced rust and is now widespread in the Region. Limited host impact to date. We plan to transfer agents to new sites if the numbers at release sites Green Thistle allow to address the very large response received from press and Beef and Beetle Lamb extension work during the summer of 2016. Californian thistle No work planned. gall fly St John’s St John’s wort No work planned. Wort beetle Ragwort flea No work planned. We will respond to enquires but this agent is across our beetle entire region. Ragwort No work planned. This agent is widespread across the Region and is Cinnabar moth causing obvious, though not fatal, damage to plant foliage.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 296

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Agent Planned activity

Ragwort plume We will continue to transfer this agent across the Region as the numbers moth build. 12 No work planned. This agent is widespread throughout the Region. Its Seed weevil effect on the host plant is limited, but it does destroy many seeds in the

spring seed set. Item No work planned. This seed feeder is becoming more common and has the Pod moth potential to take out both the spring and autumn seed sets. This agent was widely released between 1995 and 2000 and is now well established. Colonial hard No work planned. This agent was released into the Rangitikei District in Gorse shoot moth 2001 and 2002. Agent impact has been limited to date. No work planned. This agent has failed to establish at initial release sites, Hard shoot moth and no further releases are planned at this stage. No work planned. This agent was introduced to the Region between 1994 and 1996 near Turakina. To date the agent has not established, although Soft shoot moth some impressive results have been recorded in both Canterbury and Marlborough. No work planned. Widespread throughout the Region, this sap sucker Spider mite causes obvious damage but the impacts are not widespread. The mite is actively predated by ladybirds. No work planned. This sap sucker, which attacks fresh shoots and possibly Scotch small seedlings, has been widely released since the 1990s. The UK strain

Thistle Gorse thrips is slow to disperse, whereas the Portuguese strain is much more mobile and can be found over most of the Region. Agent impact on host plants is limited at this stage. Gall fly We will distribute this agent on request. No work planned. This foliage feeder was introduced to three sites near

Waiouru. The original releases were disappointing as beetles established AnnexA Heather Heather beetle poorly. It has been found that the application of nitrogen fertiliser to the host plant significantly increases the vigour and impact of this agent. Damage to the host plant is severe, but remains localised. No work planned. Blackberry rusts cover a range of fungi, each of which is specific to a different strain of blackberry. These rusts have self-introduced Blackberry Blackberry rusts and are now widespread across the Region, but host impact has been limited to date. Several new rusts have been introduced to Australia in recent years, and it is hoped they will self-introduce here in coming years. No work planned. This seed feeder is widespread throughout the Region, Receptacle weevil where it is working well in conjunction with the other two agents. Gall fly No work planned. Well established at most sites in the Region. Nodding Look to make transfers and monitor establishment. This agent feeds on the Thistle host plant’s crown and roots and has established well at all release sites, Crown weevil but further distributions are needed to ensure its spread through the Region. We will particularly look to establish more sites in the Tararua District. Continue to monitor establishment. This sap sucker has established at Broom psylid several sites and is locally abundant. Has had some good successes nationally, but limited impact regionally. No work planned. This seed feeder has spread readily through the Region Broom seed unaided and is widespread and abundant. The agent acts to lower seed beetle production. Broom No work planned. This agent is both widespread and abundant, and Broom twig miner causes visible damage at high population levels. Works best at dense host plant sites. We will assess sites and transfer if populations are high enough. We will Broom gall mite supply information to the national assessment project. Leaf beetle Monitor establishment. Shoot moth Has not been released into the Manawatu-Wanganui Region yet.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 297

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Plant Agent Planned activity

No work planned. This foliage feeder has self-introduced into the Region, Hemlock Hemlock moth and can cause severe damage in good years. However, in most years, impacts are limited. No work planned. Released near Waiouru in 1997-98; impacts have been Heiracium rust Item 12 Item variable and limited to date. Hieracium plume No work planned. Foliage feeder released near Waiouru. Impact unknown Hieracium moth at this stage and there are breeding difficulties with this agent. No work planned. Very damaging under laboratory conditions. Seems to Gall midge have established near Waiouru and it is hoped the impact will be evident early next year. Monitor establishment and impact. Self introduced into the Region. Plants Bridal creeper have decreased on the three known sites in the Region; the fungus is Smilax rust abundant on all plants although the effect will be dependant on weather conditions later in the year. Leaf beetle Monitor establishment. Tradescantia Stem beetle Monitor establishment. Support the Tutsan Action Group (TAG) to bulk produce the two agents Tutsan Multiple agents cleared for release into New Zealand due to the groups work. Horizons will continue to support the Rangitikei Horsetail Group as it Field prepares for another Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF) bid and supports Horsetail weevil

horsetail Landcare Research to attempt to solve mass rearing methods to greatly

multiply the weevil within containment.

16.5.4 Biocontrol Research

AnnexA Horizons Regional Council will support national and also regional initiatives to investigate biological control options for pest plants that may not be nominated pests within our RPPMS or RPMP, but have the potential to impact greatly if they become established or increase in range and number. This collective approach enables potentially national problems to be solved at local or regional levels and means projects can be advanced at a faster rate than relying on a council ‘to go it alone’. Horizons is part of a consortium of interested agencies which, over the past 12 years, have contracted Landcare Research to investigate, test and introduce a variety of agents to target the most troublesome pest plants in the country. The consortium meets annually to agree on target pest species and to prioritise expenditure. During the 2016-17 financial year Landcare Research has been contracted to supply Horizons with the following: . Stakeholder services $35,000

16.6 Pest Plant Awareness

16.6.1 Introduction

The aim of providing awareness and promotion material, activities and programmes is to effect positive behaviour change across our community. If occupiers of land grow responsibly and dump garden waste responsibly then the transfer of weeds to vulnerable areas should stop. Alerting the community to the issues, threats and solutions of weed management should result in more effective pest plant management.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 298

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

16.6.2 Performance Measures

Table 8: Pest plant awareness performance measures 12 Education / Public information and advice Target Horizons Regional Council will carry out

community education programmes to increase Item public awareness and to provide information to the public. Respond to general inquiries and requests for

advice within two working days. Horizons Regional Council will provide ongoing advice to the public on control measures, management programmes and plant identification. Actions required 1. Organise and attend field days, as appropriate. General programme 2. Develop and implement a pest plant awareness strategy and events calendar.

16.6.3 Planned activity

Activity Planned activity We will investigate producing new resources to assist with the release Brochures and information of the RPMP. This may be leaflets, book/s or other methods to better sheets engage with all communities to inform about pests and also occupiers rights and responsibilities.

As topics come to hand, but will include items such as: Across the AnnexA Region (ATR) weeds to watch for; Ruapehu regular weed information Media Releases articles; Biocontrol interest pieces and promotion like the Rangitikei Horsetail Group; Check-Clean-Dry when you move between rivers; and community groups. Signage Refresh signs established across the Region. Continue to support the use of the WEEDBUSTERS brand and to WEEDBUSTERS support the existing community groups and encourage new groups to form. Field Days Displays will be produced for Central District Field Days. Talk to groups about work we do that is of interest to them. Other Carry out a Check, Clean, Dry behaviour change awareness programme to stop the spread of freshwater pests.

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 299

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

17 Reporting

The pest plant outputs will be reported on as described in the following table. Our aim is to highlight the important events that occur outside the planned operations as well as the

outcomes being gained due to the intervention of Horizons site management and also its Item 12 Item awareness programmes. We will collect outcome measurable data at weed sites and also aim to target and measure our other programmes so we can assess the success and fine tune our approach for future work. Table 9: Reporting performance measures Report Comment: The Annual Report will report against Annual Annual Report Plan commitments as they relate to Pest Plant Management Bi-monthly reports will be prepared to report Bi-monthly Environment Committee Report progress towards meeting annual targets. Pest Plant Monitoring Report Such reporting will include:  Achievement under each objective in the Strategy The Environmental Biosecurity, Habitat  Trends in the incidence and extent of pest Protection and Regional Response Manager is

plants, and of biocontrol agents responsible for preparing the ‘Pest Plant

 The results of inspections of plant nurseries Monitoring Report’ to assess progress made and retail outlets against targets in the Pest Plant Operational  Assessing performance against budget Plan.  Targets met  Control programmes completed; and AnnexA  Problems incurred. The Biosecurity Manager is responsible for initiating a review of the Operational Plan Pest Plant Operational Plan (Monitoring report) by February each year. The completed Operational Plan is due by 30 October. Monthly performance against monthly phased budget will report to Council’s Audit & Risk Financial Committee, to corporate standard “Monthly Financial Report”

Regional Pest Management Plan & Strategy Operational Plan 2016-17 Page 300

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Report No. 16-137 Information Only - No Decision Required

ONE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS: DASHBOARD REPORT 13 Item

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1. This item is for information purposes. It presents the four monthly dashboard report showing One Plan implementation progress attached at Annex A.

2. RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommends that Council: a. receives the information contained in Report No. 16-137 and Annex.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1. The report will be presented every four months to this Committee as previously agreed at the Regional Council meeting in February 2016. 3.2. The dashboard is a snapshot of progress on key aspects of Horizons’ One Plan implementation. It is a regular report that is one part of the wider monitoring and evaluation work.

4. FINANCIAL IMPACT 4.1. There is no financial impact associated with this item.

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.1. Publication of the item through the agenda and on the Horizons Regional Council website is deemed to be sufficient.

6. SIGNIFICANT BUSINESS RISK IMPACT 6.1. There is no significant business risk.

7. DISCUSSION 7.1. Most of the dashboard items will be reported every four months - nutrient management consenting progress for example. For some items however, less frequent reporting may be preferable because the best information is only available annually, for example consent compliance annual trends; or because the measure sees little change, for example One Plan methods implementation as noted in the last report. 7.2. This will allow reporting in the course of a year that rotates through a range of good measures. For example, on the Plan’s indigenous biodiversity priority, the dashboard will report three times a year in total, and once a year each on wetland / bush protection, freshwater fish habitat protection, and pest plant / pest animal control. An annual report on progress with te ao Māori measures in Chapter 2 of the Plan is proposed. 7.3. This dashboard has the first te ao Māori report. Other changes or new measures since the last report are:

One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Page 301

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

i. Information on dairy conversions since 2010 in target and non-target catchments: Information on conversions is explored further in the Regulatory Management report, which Environment Committee will also receive this month. ii. For nutrient management consents in the Coastal Rangitikei zone: Since February

Item 13 Item 2016, overall consented N leaching reduction in the zone has changed from a -7% reduction required in the first five years (13 consents) to a reduction of -1.1% from 35 consents given a significant number of controlled activity consents. iii. For the Sustainable Land Use Initiative: The previous report in February 2016 showed the percentage expected change in hill country erosion, if all farm plans done were implemented. This report shows total works implemented on different land priorities in the 10 years since SLUI began. It shows that most work has been done on the highest priority land (factors relevant to priority-setting including the state of the catchment, high erodibility or erosion history, and proximity to water). Progress to the One Plan’s 50% farm plan target by 2017 is almost complete, with 49.5% of top priority land now having had farm plans done. This means that future focus can turn more towards implementation. iv. Progress towards trout and inanga (native freshwater fish) spawning site mapping and protection is reported: DOC, the QE-II trust, and private landowners make significant contributions, in addition to work done by Horizons. v. More information for wastewater has been added to this dashboard: The last report showed the number of consents in progress including both territorial authority and other wastewater discharges. For treated wastewater discharge, the expected change in volume discharged to water by 2020 is now shown, which is the One Plan target measure.

7.4. For water allocation, it was intended that reports for groundwater and surface water would alternate on the dashboard, with a surface water report having been done in February 2016, showing availability and over-allocation in different freshwater management units (FMUs). The intention this time was to do the same for groundwater, for the five of the One Plan’s 10 groundwater management zones where enough information is known (with three unknown, and two zones under review). Because issues with data capture were not able to be resolved in the time available, the groundwater report has been deferred. The intention is to resolve the issues and report on both surface and groundwater allocations later in 2016. 7.5. Compliance with resource consents is omitted from this dashboard. It will be reported again following the end of the financial year, showing annual compliance rates and trends. 7.6. For most measures the cut-off date for data collection was 30 April. Some measures are subject to change more frequently however, and as a result more recent data has been included. Nutrient management consents are up until 31 May, wastewater discharges until 9 June, and conversions and consented nitrogen reduction were cut-off at 7 June. The Regulatory Management report to Environment Committee will have updated numbers post these cut off points. 7.7. Other explanatory notes are given on the reverse side of the dashboard.

8. CONSULTATION 8.1. This report tracks implementation of One Plan methods across the organisation. Relevant teams have been involved in developing measures and supplying data.

One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Page 302

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

9. SIGNIFICANCE 9.1. This is not a significant decision according to the Council’s Policy on Significance and Engagement. 13 Item

Kerry Wynne Claire Browning POLICY ASSISTANT SENIOR POLICY ANALYST

Tom Bowen MANAGER POLICY & STRATEGY

ANNEXES A One Plan Implementation Dashboard Report, June 2016

One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Page 303

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 13 Item

AnnexA

One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Page 305

Environment Committee 29 June 2016

Item 13 Item

AnnexA

One Plan Implementation Progress: Dashboard Report Page 306