MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL TELEPHONE (0064) 3 520 7400 PO BOX 443 FACSIMILE (0064) 3 520 7496 MARLBOROUGH BLENHEIM 7240 EMAIL [email protected] NEW ZEALAND WEB www.marlborough.govt.nz DISTRICT COUNCIL
22 July 2016 Record No: 16131171 File Ref: D050-001-E01 Ask For: Nicole Chauval
Notice of Committee Meeting – Thursday, 28 July 2016
A meeting of the Environment Committee will be held in the Council Chambers, District Council Administration Building, 15 Seymour Street, Blenheim on Thursday, 28 July 2016 commencing at 9.00 am.
BUSINESS
As per Agenda attached.
Please note the change of time for this meeting
MARK WHEELER CHIEF EXECUTIVE ■i MARLBOROUGH ^ DISTRICT COUNCIL
Meeting of the ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chambers, 15 Seymour Street, on THURSDAY, 28 JULY 2016 commencing at 9.00 am
Committee Clr P J S Jerram (Chairperson) Clr D D Oddie (Deputy) Clr J A Arbuckle Clr G S Barsanti Clr C J Brooks Clr L M Shenfield Mayor Sowman Mr E R Beech (Rural representative) Mr R Smith (Iwi representative)
Departmental Head Mr H Versteegh (Manager, Regulatory Department)
Staff Nicole Chauval (Committee Secretary)
In Public Page
1. Confirmation of Sub-Committee Business ...... 1 2. Active Fault Mapping and Fault Avoidance Zones for the Wairau Fault, Marlborough District ..... 2 3. Significant Marine Sites Monitoring 2016 ...... 4 4. Shakespeare Bay Estuary Monitoring 2016 ...... 7 5. Coastal Monitoring State of the Environment Report Card 2016 ...... 10 6. Significant Natural Areas Project - Summary of Results of Landowner Attitudes and Awareness Questionnaire and Monitoring Re-visits of Un-managed Significant Natural Area Sites 2015/16 ...... 14 7. Recreational Water Quality of the Taylor River - Update ...... 16 8. Doctors Creek - Water Quality Booklet for Landowners ...... 18 9. Environmental Health Activity Summary for 2015/16 ...... 19 10. Environmental Protection Compliance and Enforcement Activity Summary for 2015/16 ...... 23 11. Appointment of Hearings Commissioner ...... 27 12. Aids to Navigation ...... 34 13. Marine Farm Light Audits ...... 35 14. Harbour Fees and Charges - Review ...... 37 15. Information Package ...... 39
1. Confirmation of Sub-Committee Business
RECOMMENDED That the following approvals granted by the Swimming Pools Sub-Committee under delegated authority (Environment Committee Minute R.13/14.166) be confirmed:
· T & J Thomas, 10 Silk Close, Witherlea, Blenheim 7201, - exemption to install a Save-T Cover III automatic pool cover in lieu of a fence (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 1 2. Active Fault Mapping and Fault Avoidance Zones for the Wairau Fault, Marlborough District (also refer to separate attachment)
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Jamie Sigmund) E385-003-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with an update on a recently completed Envirolink funded project - Mapping of the active Wairau Fault and provision of a Fault Avoidance Zone (Stage One).
2. Brief presentation from Dr Robert Langridge (GNS Sciences) on the findings of this Stage One report (10 minutes).
Background 3. The Council was made aware of a piece of work undertaken in the Wairau Valley looking at the refinement of earthquake associated risk along the Alpine Fault (EQC/University of Southern California/GNS); as a result a request for refinement of localised Marlborough information and advice was sought via Envirolink (medium advice grant). 4. GNS has previously provided such advice to other territorial local authorities on the application of information, and for the purpose of applying the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Guidelines - “Planning for Development of Land on or Close to Active Faults” (Kerr et al, 2003). 5. The recent acquisition of high-precision Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) along c. 83% of the Wairau Fault in Marlborough District provides a technology step in providing the best possible fault location data, building on and superseding previous fault line work and GIS data held by the Council. 6. The new information from this study will be included in the register of hazard prone areas held by the Council which is used to assess resource consent applications to ensure compliance with the Resource Management and Building Acts.
7. The project also aligns the regulatory and emergency management roles that the Council has with respect to natural hazards, being able to advise local civil defence and emergency management groups and lifelines utilities groups of the whereabouts of active faults zones.
8. Deliverables for this report include: a) A literature review of any information on the known extent of the Wairau Fault and other fault lines within the Marlborough District. b) Data discovery - assembling LiDAR data for fault mapping. c) Mapping the Wairau Fault in Marlborough District using LiDAR and other datasets. d) Developing a Fault Avoidance Zone for the Wairau Fault and using its recurrence interval data to outline the planning implications.
9. This is a staged project, with Stage Two (Southern Marlborough Faults) and Stage Three (Offshore Fault Continuance) yet to be started (August 2016).
Comments 10. The rupture of an active fault, such as the Wairau Fault, has the capacity to damage or destroy dwellings or other infrastructure, such as bridges and roads, with consequent loss of life (both human and stock). Consideration should be given to identifying these hazard features within the district resource management plan, and therefore mitigating some of the effects of such events.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 2 Summary 11. A report identifying the refined location of the Wairau Fault has been prepared (attached separately).
12. The report will help the Council to give more clear and concise information about active faults to potential end users once zone flagging information has been compiled. (Stage One is complete; while Stage Two and Three are yet to start.)
13. Checking of all resource consent applications against the flagged active fault avoidance zones will be a step forward, particularly if used in conjunction with the MfE Guidelines, i.e. “Planning for Development of Land on or Close to Active Faults: a guideline to assist resource management planners in New Zealand”.
RECOMMENDED That the report be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 3 3. Significant Marine Sites Monitoring 2016 (also refer to separate attachment)
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Dr Steve Urlich) E325-002-004-01
Purpose 1. To provide the Committee with the results from the monitoring of the ecologically significant marine sites in Croisilles Harbour and off eastern D’Urville Island.
2. Separate attachment: Monitoring significant sites survey and monitoring programme: Summary report 2015-16. Davidson Environmental Limited, Nelson.
3. Rob Davidson, marine ecologist, will give a presentation summarising the report (20 minutes).
Background 4. In 2011, the Council and the Department of Conservation commissioned Davidson Environmental Limited to lead an expert group to collate information about marine sites which were known to be important ecologically and as habitat for threatened species. These sites were then assessed against a number of criteria for significance. 129 sites considered significant were identified.
5. This information was published and is now available on the Council’s website (Figure 1).
6. Significant marine sites are protected by a prohibition on dredging and bottom-trawling in the Marlborough Environment Plan (MEP), notified on 9 June 2016. This is because the Council has a statutory responsibility under sections 6 and 30 of the Resource Management Act to protect the habitats of significance to indigenous fauna and to maintain indigenous biological diversity.
Ecologically Significant Marine Sites in Marlborough
The Marlborough District Council, In conjunction with the Department of Conservation, have released a report on ecologically significant marine sites In Marlborough. The report was written and complied by seven expets in marine ecology. The report identifies and descnbes the Baaxxir sotfCuT uae ■ nvtwoM KoriALMc ecological values for significant sites that support rare, unique or special features, from the top of the high tide mart; to the edge of the regional boundary 22 km offshore, for an area that stretches from Cape Soucis in Tasman Bay (Croisllles Harbour) in the northwest through the Marlborough Sounds, and south to Willawa Point, near Kekerengu, on the east coast
This report outlines known information on areas with conservation, scientific or ecological value that have come from a variety of sources including previous reports, however some sites have only been recently discovered and require further study There is no doubt that many areas remain unknown, while some existing areas are often poorly descnbed or their extent remains unmapped.
Figure 1: Ecologically significant marine sites publication: http://www.marlborough.govt.nz/Environment/Coastal/Coastal-Ecosystems/Significant-Marine-Sites.aspx
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 4 Comments 7. A survey and monitoring protocol for these significant sites has now been developed. All sites will be systematically visited at least once every ten years. A subset of sensitive biogenic (living) habitats will be monitored more frequently. Estuaries are being monitored in a separate project.
8. The protocol includes surveying sites which are poorly known, such that an assessment of significance could not be undertaken in 2011. New or candidate sites will also be progressively visited. The report is planned to be revised once sufficient information has been gathered.
9. The Council and the Department of Conservation are co-funding the survey and monitoring programme, and jointly set the priority area for monitoring. The Committee will recall that the first year of survey and monitoring was focused on Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound, Tory Channel/Kura Te Au and Te Anamahanga/Port Gore. This was presented to the Committee on 23 July 2015. The report highlighted ongoing damage to, and loss of, significant marine sites.
10. Davidson Environmental will present the findings of the second year’s monitoring, conducted last summer. This includes information on better defining the boundaries of each area (spatial extent) along with a comparison with previous information, and data on the condition of each site. There was an overall reduction in area by 215 hectares due to more accurate survey at each site.
11. The second year of monitoring focused on sites within Croisilles Harbour and off eastern D’Urville Island. A number of fragile biogenic communities, including rhodolith (calcified algae) beds and stunning bryozoan (coral-like) communities, were surveyed and photographed (Figure 2).
12. The sensitivity of many of the sites is such that dredging and bottom-trawling can cause severe damage and destruction, with consequent loss of biodiversity. The ecosystem value of these habitats is highlighted by the invertebrates and fish that congregate at these sites. These habitats are likely to be relatively old and slow growing, which means they take a very long time to recover.
13. These habitats are now relatively scarce, meaning those that remain are even more important. The Committee has seen previous reports on the reduction in size and distribution of habitats in Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound and Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound over the last 150 years.
.. :
-
Figure 2: Biogenic habitat containing bryozoanas, ascidians, anemones and sponges. Photo: Rob Davidson.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 5 14. Davidson Environmental makes a number of recommendations to protect the Croisilles and D’Urville sites in the attached report (set out in Table 1 below). These include protection from dredging and bottom-trawling at most sites, to protection from all forms of disturbance, including preventing anchoring and shifting mooring blocks at the most fragile sites. Attribute Values Area in 2011 (ha) 1009.4 Area in 2016 (ha) * 794.8 Potential new sites" Potential site removed" 0 Increase in area (ha) " Decrease in area (ha) " Overall change in ha. " Sites Recommendations Site 1.2 Croisilles Harbour Entrance Quantitative survey of lancelet to assess if recreational dredging is an impact Site 1.4 Motuanauru Is. Boulder Bank Site 1.5 (A,B,C) Coppermine-Ponganui Bays Protect from all physical disturbance, relocate moorings located within the rhodolith beds Site 2.6 Rangitoto Passage Continue survey around Islands, protect from all form of physical disturbance Site 2.13 (A,B,C) Catherine Cove Protect from all forms of physical disturbance Site 2.15 Clay Point Site 2.18 Paparoa Site 2.20 Chetwodes to The Haystack Protect soft substratum areas from all forms of physical disturbance Site 2.35 Hunia Establish an approach distance guideline for colony Site 1.9 Lone Rock Protect from all forms of disturbance Site 2.37 Penguin Island Channel Protect from all heavy disturbance, anchoring OK •Recommended but subject to expert peer review
Table 1: Summary of sites and sub-sites investigated during the present study and main recommendations
15. These recommendations are consistent with those made after the first year’s monitoring in Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound by the Significant Marine Sites Expert Panel report. The Expert Panel report was considered by the Environment Committee on 26 November 2015.
16. The Expert Panel identified different categories of sites based on their susceptibility to different types of disturbance, and the degree of risk to those sites. Some sites can withstand anchoring and recreational dredging, others are not resilient to any forms of dredging and the most fragile cannot tolerate even light boat anchors, such as tubeworm mounds, rhodolith beds and bryozoans.
17. The Expert Panel report also called for buffers to be established around significant sites to prevent accidental incursions caused by GPS errors or strong currents dragging dredges over habitats. That report was referred to the Council’s Regional Planning and Development Committee to consider.
18. The recommendations and data presented in the attached Davidson monitoring report are also to go before the Significant Marine Sites Expert Panel. The Expert Panel will report back to the Council and the Department of Conservation by September. That information will then be presented to Council for consideration.
Summary 19. The Council has an inventory of significant marine sites as part of its statutory responsibility for protecting and maintaining biodiversity. These are being progressively monitored and surveyed. The second year of the monitoring programme has been completed. Davidson Environmental has produced a report outlining the extent and condition of the sites visited. A number of high value ecological habitats were identified. The Davidson report will be referred to the Significant Marine Sites Expert Panel for confirmation of the site assessments and recommendations.
RECOMMENDED 1. That the report be received. 2. That the Committee note that an Expert Panel report on the year two monitoring results will be presented in the near future.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 6 4. Shakespeare Bay Estuary Monitoring 2016 (also refer to separate attachment)
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Dr Steve Urlich) E325-006-005-01
Purpose 1. To provide the Committee with the results from recent monitoring of the Shakespeare Bay estuary.
2. Separate attachment: Shakespeare Bay estuary monitoring 2016. Cawthron Institute, Nelson.
3. Dr Anna Berthelsen, marine ecologist from Cawthron, will give a presentation (15 minutes).
Background 4. Shakespeare Bay is a small estuary within the larger Picton Bays area (Figure 1). The bay extends about 1.5 kilometres from the shore and is about 500 metres wide. The estuary is at the head of the bay (Figure 2) and is predominantly surrounded by native bush and pasture. The Waimahara wharf operated by Port Marlborough is on the eastern side of the bay.
5. A recent review of historical change by the Cawthron Institute highlighted that Shakespeare Bay was the site of a freezing works discharge (Figure 3). The current survey shows that the estuary has made a recovery, with the ecologically valuable seagrass now present in some abundance.
6. The Cawthron study comprised two parts: broad-scale mapping of intertidal (area of seabed between spring high and low tidal levels) and estuary fringe (the area above spring high tide) habitats; and fine-scale analysis of sediment characteristics, nutrients and contaminants.
fj
Shahefipcare Bay
Picton Harbour
Liowle earth
Figure 1: Picton Bays consists of three bays in Queen Charlotte Sound/Totaranui: Shakespeare Bay, Picton Harbour and Waikawa Bay (image edited from Google Earth)
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 7 SU0M4M Typ. B BMM M» % mi? '»">iw.f'i Or C4aM >M 111 ■ 1 » ' l^v Grw*» fMS s TWM * - nmiA^JV tVaCutv> » ' v» ■ K2i«— %9M ■■ v*«raa»i
/
It5 i a
mz
r*»
<. Figure 2: Shakespeare estuary with Waimahara Wharf (left) and different habitats identified by Cawthron (right)
7. In the fine-scale sampling areas, there were no obvious signs of pollution. Contaminant and heavy metal levels sampled in the estuary were within national guideline levels.
8. At a broad-scale, there were only small areas with soft mud. Most habitats comprised firm sands or gravel reflecting a lack of recent sedimentation. There was a sizeable area of native salt marsh habitat in the estuary fringe and relatively extensive seagrass beds in the intertidal flats.
9. Seagrass beds are an important biogenic (living) habitat. They provide stable physical habitat and a localised food source, which support a diverse community of invertebrates and a variety of fish. Seagrass has nutrient filtering and sediment trapping properties, which helps to maintain water quality. However, seagrass beds are vulnerable to excessive sedimentation from dredging and logging if these activities are not carefully managed.
-4
p* s
«
Figure 3: Shakespeare Bay in the 1970s with offal discharge evident in the red plume. Photo: Port Marlborough Shakespeare Bay in 2016 showing healthy seagrass beds and regenerating native bush. Photo: Cawthron.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 8 10. The Cawthron Institute suggest that Shakespeare Bay estuary could be used as a reference against which other estuaries with similar characteristics within Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound could be compared, given its current good condition.
Summary 11. The Cawthron Institute have recently undertaken an ecological survey of the Shakespeare Bay estuary. This comprised mapping of different habitats including vegetation patterns. Ecologically valuable seagrass beds were identified. These are vulnerable to sedimentation. Fine-scale sampling of sediments did not reveal any problems with contaminants.
RECOMMENDED That the report be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 9 5. Coastal Monitoring State of the Environment Report Card 2016
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Karlien Heyns) E375-017-001, E375-017-002, E325-002-001
Purpose 1. This report is to update Committee members on the state of the water quality of the Marlborough Sounds.
2. Coastal Water Quality - Monitoring 2015/16 Report Card (Refer Appendix A)
3. Karlien Heyns, Environmental Monitoring Officer, will give a presentation (10 minutes).
Background 4. The Council has an ongoing coastal water quality monitoring programme in the Marlborough Sounds. 11 sites are monitored in both the Te Hoiere/Pelorus and Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sounds on a monthly basis. The purpose of the monitoring is to:
a) Gain an understanding of nutrient and plankton dynamics in time and space. b) Detect changes in water quality to enable management interventions to occur. c) Inform the community about the state of the aquatic ecosystems in the Sounds. d) Contribute to biophysical modelling of the effects of aquaculture and check the predictions of that modelling.
5. The monitoring has occurred since 2011 in Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound and since 2012 in Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound.
6. It is important to have an ongoing long time series of data for State of the Environment monitoring. This helps us begin to distinguish between both natural and anthropogenic causes that drive the variation in measurement results, during summer and winter, and El Nino/La Nina for example.
7. The attached report card summarises the trends in the nitrate-nitrogen and chlorophyll-a since monitoring began.
8. One of the key drivers of changes to water quality is the amount of nitrate in the Sounds. Nitrate inputs come from various sources; Cook Strait, fish farms and catchments being the main contributors. Too much nitrate can lead to eutrophication, which indicates pollution.
9. We also monitor chlorophyll-a as a measure of algal or plankton growth. Chlorophyll increases with an increase in nitrate if sufficient light conditions are available. Excess plankton growth can lead to algal blooms, which can lower dissolved oxygen on the seafloor and negatively affect the organisms living there.
10. Dissolved oxygen tends to be lower in the bottom waters during summer because the temperature gradient causes the water to “split” into warmer water at the top and colder water at the bottom. In winter, temperatures are more uniform and the water column mixes so that dissolved oxygen is also more uniform throughout from surface to bottom.
11. Monitoring also includes other nutrient concentrations, the amount of sediment particles present and the physical properties of the water column. This helps build a more complete picture of how the system works and responds to various physical and chemical changes.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 10 12. Understanding the dynamics of these systems is important in managing it sustainably. NIWA’s hydrodynamic models are very useful in helping to achieve this and in predicting how the systems will respond to chemical changes in the water, while ongoing monitoring results give the exact concentrations of nutrients. Therefore, for example, we can measure fish farm inputs and determine whether excess nutrients coming from the farms have an effect.
13. Monitoring results show that inputs from fish farms have not affected the natural variation of nutrients and resulting chlorophyll-a.
14. An extensive analysis of monitoring results to June 2015 by NIWA substantiates this. NIWA undertook a complete analysis of all monitoring parameters to the year ending 30 June 2015. This report is available on Council’s coastal webpages.
15. The NIWA analysis shows that the monitoring is building a sound baseline to help determine the effects of anthropogenic activities and can be used in future to help assess the effectiveness of management interventions, such as more effective sediment controls on land uses.
16. The Council is now building capability internally to take over the data analysis from NIWA. An annual report card will be produced for the key variables of nitrate and chlorophyll-a, with a full analysis of all parameters presented every three years.
Summary 17. A state of the environment report card on coastal water quality has been developed. This summarises monitoring results from five years of monitoring in Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound and four years in Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound for key water quality attributes. The report card shows that nitrate-nitrogen and chlorophyll-a levels fluctuate within acceptable limits. The report card is underpinned by a comprehensive analysis by NIWA which shows the ecosystem is currently able to accommodate the effects of anthropogenic effects on nutrients and productivity. The data will also be invaluable for helping to target management interventions and contribute to measuring the effectiveness of these.
RECOMMENDED That the report card be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 11 Coastal Water Quality - Monitoring 2015/2016
Key Points What is Marlborough District Council doing? • MDC has an Monitoring is essential in order to pick up any changes in the water quality over time and ongoing Sounds to determine how water quality is affected by inputs from different sources. monitoring programme to MDC monitors and collect determine water samples monthly in the quality Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound and Te Hoiere/ • It is important to Pelorus Sound. This gives distinguish between a good indication of natural natural changes seasonal changes and in conditions vs catchment influences, and anthropogenic long-term data enables us • Nitrate is an to identify irregularities. important nutrient MDC has been monitoring to monitor as it can Totaranui/Queen Charlotte have direct effects Sound since 2011, and on water quality Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound since 2012. There are a • The major sources total of 11 sites in each of excess nitrate Sound that get sampled is from the throughout the main axis surrounding land and in the major side-arms. and from fish farms Figure 1: Map of sampling site locations in the Marlborough Sounds. • Algal growth, measured as What we measure Why we measure chlorophyll-a, These measurements show the movement increases with an Nitrate, chlorophyll-a and dissolved of the water and resulting transportation increase in nitrate oxygen. These are important indicators of ecosystem health. We also measure of nutrients in the system, as detailed in • This may lead to the amount of sediment particles in NIWA’s hydrodynamic models. This allows algal blooms and the water. Fine sediment affects the us to predict how the system will respond to lowered dissolved clarity of the water and can therefore changing nutrient levels. We can see which oxygen in the impact on the aesthetic values of the changes need to be made to promote the bottom waters Sounds. It can also smother the sea bed, sustainability and health of the Sounds, as reducing biodiversity. summarised in the State of the Environment • Monitoring results Physical properties of the water column Report (2015). show that nitrate change with depth. The changes in water This is especially important in the Marlborough levels are within - ■ temperature, salinity and other physical Sounds, where high aquaculture use and desirable limits measures1 with depth provide information farming in the catchments have the potential about the amount of mixing that occurs in to cause nutrient enrichment and change the the water column. trophic state of the ecosystem. Various nutrients important to the health The monitoring data is vital in establishing of the ecosystem are also measured, baseline measurements—something that including phosphorus and silicon. we can use as “normal” values over time to compare results that may indicate changes. Despite the higher nitrate concentrations in winter algal What is chlorophyll-a? biomass (measured as chlorophyll-a) is low due to reduced Chlorophyll-a is the main colour pigment of algae used for photosynthesis. The measurement of chlorophyll-a is an efficient growth caused by lower water temperatures and shorter way of monitoring the amount of algae in the water. Algae drive days (Figure 2). This acts as a break to naturally reset the productivity through the food chain, therefore high chlorophyll-a system. Algal biomass is usually highest late winter/early concentrations are an indication of high algae concentrations. spring (Figure 3).
The importance of chlorophyll-a, Pelorus Sound Nitrate Levels dissolved oxygen and nitrate 10 — Chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen can change as a result of altered nutrient input, and these trends can be detected over time and compared to baseline levels. Nitrate is one of the main nutrients required by algae for photosynthesis. Therefore an increase in nitrate concentrations can lead to increased algae growth resulting in higher chlorophyll-a concentrations. E .i ii L.I This can lead to “dirtier” looking water, which affects 2013 2014 2015 2016 the aesthetics and recreational use of the Sounds. Sampling Period More importantly, it could cause very low oxygen Figure 2: Nitrate concentrations over the sampling period to date concentrations in the bottom waters as the extra organic in the Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound. matter sinks to the bottom where it is broken down - a process that uses up the oxygen. If dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen changes throughout the seasons concentrations are too low, it may prove detrimental as the water column becomes layered during warmer to the organisms living there and potentially cause months, and mixed during colder months. significant long-term habitat damage and subsequent Queen Charlotte Sound Chlorophyll-a Levels ecosystem degradation. 5.5 5
4.5 System trophic change Fish Farms NZKS trigger level 4
If the fish farms are run with good practices and 1) - 3.5 according to prescribed guidelines, there should not be 3 a (µg.L - a problem. The Sounds hydrodynamic models suggest 2.5 Chl that it is unlikely for the currently consented fish farms to 2 change the trophic state of the water; however, in order 1.5 to ensure the sustainable use of the Sounds, ongoing 1 monitoring will confirm whether adverse effects on the 0.5 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 surrounding marine environment exist. Sampling Period (seasonally averaged) Currently algae growth appears to have not been Figure 3: Average chlorophyll-a concentrations affected by an increase in nutrients from fish farms. over the course of a year in the Totaranui/Queen C
Seasonal Patterns Want to know more? www.marlborough.govt.nz Chlorophyll-a shows a seasonal pattern that changes * A Biophysical model for the Marlborough Sounds, throughout the year due to different concentrations of Part One and Two by NIWA simulates water nutrients (mainly nitrate) and light conditions available. movement through the Sounds and predict Nitrate concentrations increase during winter when river nutrient concentrations, and subsequent rates of phytosynthesis. flows are higher. Rivers and streams are the main source of nitrate from land. Because no large rivers flow into the * Water Quality in the Marlborough Sounds — Annual Totaranui/Queen Charlotte Sound the seasonal nitrate Monitoring report July 2014-June 2015 by NIWA over that monitoring period. patterns are not as strong compared to the Te Hoiere/ Pelorus Sound. * 2015 State of the Environment‘s Coastal chapter gives an overview of Marlborough’s coastal Nutrient-rich oceanic waters from the Cook Strait coming environments, pressures on water quality and into the outer Sounds also bring in nitrate, particularly in current state there of, as well as management of El Niño conditions. effects of aquaculture.
Published July 2016 For more information on coastal water quality go to (Ref E325-002-001) www.marlborough.govt.nz Marlborough District Council Seymour Square, Blenheim. Telephone 03 520 7400 Fax 03 520 7496 6. Significant Natural Areas Project - Summary of Results of Landowner Attitudes and Awareness Questionnaire and Monitoring Re-visits of Un-managed Significant Natural Area Sites 2015/16 (also refer to separate attachment)
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Nicky Eade) E310-009-001
Purpose 1. This report (attached separately) provides an overview of the results of a recent programme to evaluate the ongoing effectiveness of the significant natural areas (SNA) programme where active management or restoration actions have not been implemented. Information was collected on both SNA landowner attitudes and awareness through a telephone questionnaire and, on the condition of un-managed SNA sites, through field visits to a selection of sites to assess their state and condition trend.
2. Nicky Eade will present this report to the Committee (10 minutes).
Background 3. Through the Resource Management Act 1991 and its subsequent amendments, the Council has a role in maintaining and protecting indigenous biodiversity and significant natural areas in the Marlborough region. Since 2001 the Council has implemented the Significant Natural Areas (SNA) project, which has involved extensive field based ecological survey work on private land and a subsequent protection and monitoring programme to identify sites and help landowners protect and manage these sites.
4. Once a site has been identified through the programme, there is no obligation on a landowner to carry out protection work. While approximately 85 sites have been actively protected in some way through the Council assistance programme since 2004, this is a relatively small proportion of all of the 700 sites identified through the programme (12%). The Council was interested to gain a wider picture of how the programme is perceived by landowners given the time that has passed since its establishment, and also to gauge the state and condition trend of the biodiversity values within identified SNA sites where no active protection or management work (that the Council was aware of), had taken place over time.
5. In order to do this a telephone questionnaire was carried out with the landowners of properties with significant natural areas identified on them and a selection of sites were re-visited to assess their ecological condition. Four ecological district areas that were part of the earliest original SNA survey programme were selected for this follow up programme. These were the Kekerengu and Medway ecological districts, which were originally surveyed by the Council, and the Grassmere and Wither Hills ecological districts, which were originally surveyed by the Department of Conservation.
Comments 6. Forty nine landowners completed the telephone questionnaire process, 25 in the first season (Kekerengu and Medway ecological districts) and 24 in the second season (Grassmere and Wither Hills ecological districts). There was a clear difference in the levels of awareness and knowledge between the two groups, with the first group having higher levels across all of the areas discussed. This was obvious both in relation to general awareness about the SNA programme and the more specific levels of awareness around the sites themselves and the assistance available to assist with protection work. This is most likely due to the difference in approach between the Council run SNA surveys and the Department of Conservation run Protected Natural Area surveys.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 14 7. Overall, landowner attitudes and awareness are quite mixed. It is likely that involvement in the SNA programme has raised awareness of indigenous biodiversity and conservation issues in a general sense. A number of landowners had a positive attitude towards the SNA programme and biodiversity issues, although a few (generally new landowners) had been unaware that they had sites of value on their properties. Of the less interested and aware participants, the attitude can generally be described as indifferent or uninterested rather than directly negative.
8. A total of 44 un-managed sites were re-visited, 25 in the first year and 19 in the second year. A mix of ecosystem types were included, the majority being areas of broadleaved forest (15 sites), with 10 other ecosystem types represented. Landowners received reports showing the results of the site monitoring.
9. Overall results combining all four ecological districts show that the sites visited were generally in reasonable condition (44% good or good/fair and 54% fair) which reflects the inherent resilience of most of the sites, which have persisted within a productive landscape over many years prior to the SNA programme identifying the sites in the early 2000s.
10. However, on a less positive note, very few sites were improving in condition (11% improving or improving/stable) and a reasonable proportion of sites are deteriorating (36% stable/deteriorating or deteriorating). The reasons for the deteriorating condition vary, but the main one is weed invasion, with the impact of farm stock and feral animals relevant in some instances.
11. The sites that are deteriorating in condition are spread across all ecosystem types. In some cases direct management intervention could be very effective. However the widespread presence of Old Mans Beard in many sites in the Medway area presents a real ecological dilemma as in some cases stock are keeping the weed in check where they can access it. Any efforts at control would need to be well planned and applied over the whole locality to be effective.
12. Another issue that arose in discussion with several landowners was the intention to clear areas of indigenous vegetation and a lack of awareness about the relevant controls in the Marlborough resource management plans. The relevant information and advice was provided to these landowners both verbally and in writing when the monitoring reports were sent out to them.
Summary 13. The SNA programme has been in place since 2001 and is the main mechanism through which the Council promotes the maintenance and protection of indigenous biodiversity on private land in Marlborough. Participation in the programme is voluntary and therefore not all Marlborough landowners are involved in the project (around 80%). Of those that did participate in the original programme to identify sites, only a relatively small proportion have since acted to actively invest in protection of these sites through the Council’s assistance programme.
14. This report focussed on re-engaging with all landowners in four ecological district areas that have SNA sites on their properties and re-visiting a selection of sites where no active management has taken place since the original identification in 2001/2002. Landowner awareness is mixed and further work could be done to promote the programme and its objectives. While most of the sites that were re-visited are naturally resilient remnants within very highly modified landscapes, a number are in deteriorating condition due to the impacts of weeds, feral animals and farm stock. This is to be expected without active management interventions in place. 15. The review has provided some information to assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the SNA programme which is based on a long term and voluntary approach. While there has been some positive proactive action in protecting a number of sites through the programme, further promotion to maintain landowner awareness would be beneficial to ensure that it continues to remain relevant and encourages the proactive action needed to successfully manage and protect remnant biodiversity areas on private land. The SNA Working Group will be considering the report and assisting to develop a plan of action to improve engagement with Marlborough landowners.
RECOMMENDED That the report be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 15 7. Recreational Water Quality of the Taylor River - Update
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Steffi Henkel & Alan Johnson) E375-017-001, E375-017-002
Purpose 1. This report is to update Committee members on the actions taken around the investigation of high E. coli concentration in the Taylor River at Riverside.
Background 2. At the 16 June Environment Committee meeting the 2015/16 Recreational Bathing Water report was presented. The report highlighted that there was a continuing issue with elevated E. coli concentrations at the monitoring site at Riverside.
3. The Committee will recall that 21 beaches and river sites are monitored for indicator bacteria concentrations during the summer months. The Taylor River at Riverside is the only one of these sites that has Suitability for Recreation Grade of ‘Very Poor’. The main reason is high E. coli concentrations that are not associated with rainfall (Figure 4: E. coli concentration in the Taylor River at Riverside and daily rainfall at the Council office during the 2015/16 summer seasonFigure 4).
m * m v r i r~ ~r 1400 t Blenheim - 1 f— jyj 10 Rainfall ^ | lW0 r* 20 _ S toe
Tavlor River at Riverside - E. coli concentrations 600 i. | j - li » * :| 1 1 ' : i. iOO to 1 i l i 1 ill . I l I ii. .1. i 20
Figure 4: E. coli concentration in the Taylor River at Riverside and daily rainfall at the Council office during the 2015/16 summer season
Comments 4. A number of investigations have shown that concentrations are very variable at the Taylor Riverside site, changing from slightly elevated to high concentrations within the course of the day. However, there appears to be no relationship between E. coli concentrations and other variables such as flow, time of day, duck numbers, water temperature, conductivity or tide levels. The sampling site is influenced by tidal movements and, although saltwater does not reach this far upstream, the water level and at times the direction of flow is influenced by tide levels. This means, that downstream sources can also have an impact on the water quality at the site, widening the area of possible source locations.
5. The unpredictability of E. coli concentrations makes investigating the source(s) of very high concentrations difficult. So far investigations have only captured slightly elevated E. coli concentrations and genetic source tracking of these samples has shown that ducks and dogs are the main sources. However, it remains unclear if additional sources play a role when E. coli concentrations reach very high levels.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 16 6. Stormwater outlets throughout Blenheim were sampled as part of a wider Taylor River Characterisation Study, of which the already published Doctors Creek study was a part. The results of the stormwater monitoring are currently in the form of a draft report that will be published in the near future. Preliminary results suggest that water from stormwater outlets near the Riverside sampling site had occasionally extremely high E. coli concentrations during dry weather conditions and results were highly variable.
7. If stormwater is a source of faecal contamination at the Riverside sampling site, the high variability of the stormwater results is likely to be the reason for the unpredictable E. coli concentrations observed at the Riverside sampling site.
8. On 23 June 2016 key personnel from the Regulatory and Assets and Services Departments of Council met to discuss the possible causes of the poor water quality of the Taylor River at Riverside. Several sewerage pipelines were identified as potential sources. Damage due to earthquakes and the aging of the sewerage system are potentially causing leakage of sewage into the ground and into stormwater pipes. A number of these sewers are scheduled to be inspected and repaired where necessary.
9. Dye testing is being carried out to identify areas of leakage from the sewerage system that is impacting on the water quality of the Taylor River. Initial results were inconclusive.
10. Another outcome from the meeting was the formation of a smaller ‘cross-Council’ project team to focus on the assessment of causes, communication of outcomes to the wider group and the Council and the development of an action plan.
11. Updates will be provided to the Committee once further information on potential contamination sources are determined or monitoring shows that progressive upgrading of the infrastructure network provided positive outcomes.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 17 8. Doctors Creek - Water Quality Booklet for Landowners (also refer to separate attachment)
(Clr Jerram) (Report prepared by Steffi Henkel & Peter Hamill) E375-017-002
Purpose 1. This report is to inform the Committee members about actions taken to improve water quality in the Doctors Creek catchment and to present a draft booklet to be distributed to the owners of private properties adjacent to main waterways in the catchment (attached separately).
Background 2. Regular State of the Environment sampling has shown that water quality in Doctors Creek is classified as marginal. Funding was approved to investigate the source of poor water quality. Investigative sampling was carried out in 2013/2014 and published in the report “Taylor River Catchment Characterisation - Doctors Creek” in 2015. 3. The water quality parameters that were identified as elevated included turbidity and bacteria (E. coli) counts. The main causes were: a) Direct stock access (cattle and winter grazing of sheep in vineyards); b) Poor stream bank management (removal of stream bank vegetation by spraying); c) Aquatic vegetation management (regular removal of in-stream vegetation by the Council).
Comments 4. The growth of aquatic vegetation in Doctors Creek was seen to retain sediments in the waterway. Monitoring during low flows showed a release of these sediments resulting in higher turbidity levels as a direct result of the routine aquatic spray programme which is undertaken for managing the drainage network. After discussions with the Rivers Section, it was agreed to conduct a trial to reduce the frequency of spraying the aquatic vegetation for the summer of 2015/2016. Initial results were positive with a significant improvement of the water clarity in Doctors Creek for most of the summer. 5. For the other causes of poor water quality (stock access and bank management) which contribute to the release of sediment through stream bank erosion, and the discharge of contaminants (including E. coli), a collaborative approach for responding to management has been undertaken with the private landowners in the catchment. As an initial step, letters were sent to more than 60 landowners with properties adjacent to Doctors Creek and the main tributaries. The letters included a copy of the catchment report and an invitation to attend a community meeting. The purpose was to present the information and discuss a way forward to improve water quality in Doctors Creek. Unfortunately, there was little interest from the Doctors Creek community in attending a meeting to discuss the issues. 6. Nevertheless, some of the landowners are proactive and willing to do their bit to improve water quality. For example, in the area where direct cattle access was shown to have a significant impact on several water quality parameters, permanent fencing is now keeping the cattle out of the waterway and trees were planted on the stream banks. 7. In order to encourage other landowners to carry out similar improvements a small booklet has been created. The booklet outlines the main issues causing poor water quality in Doctors Creek and describes actions required to address those issues. The booklet also contains a short guide on riparian planting. 8. The new MEP requires the Council to create catchment enhancement plans for waterways identified as degraded. Doctors Creek is one of the waterways identified in the plan. Therefore the next step will be the creation of a catchment enhancement plan for Doctors Creek. However, in the interim our focus is on working with landowners on a voluntary basis.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 18 9. Environmental Health Activity Summary for 2015/16
(Clr Brooks) (Report prepared by Rachel Mercer) E350-004-009-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Environment Committee with a brief overview of the activities undertaken by the Environmental Health Team for the 2015/16 registration year and how the Food Act 2014 is being implemented.
2. Rachel Mercer will provide a short presentation (10 minutes) on current activities carried out by the Environmental Health Team and how the Food Act 2014 transition is going.
Background 3. Environmental Health Group activities include:
· Ensuring all required premises are registered under the Health Act 1956. · Undertake inspections of all food premises under the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974. · Register and verify businesses under the Food Act 2014. · Issue Food Stall Permits and inspect various events and markets. · Undertake inspections of all other premises registered under the Health Act 1956. · Investigating complaints under the Health Act 1956 and the Marlborough District Council Bylaw 2010. · Investigating complaints of excessive and unreasonable noise pursuant to the Resource Management Act 1991 and Health Act 1956. · Monitoring and enforcement of the provisions of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. · Assessing/granting Class Four Gaming Machine consent applications.
4. The above list is quantified and reported as performance measures under the Long Term Council Community Plan.
Comments Food Premises Inspections 5. Table of Food Premises Inspections:
Number of Registered Food Number of Food Premises Number of Food Premises Premises in the 2015/16 Inspected During the Requiring Re-inspection Registration Year 2015/16 Registration Year During the 2015/16 Registration Year 272 272 6
6. The Annual Plan 2015/2016 performance target is that 100% of registered food premises are inspected at least once per annum. This performance target has been achieved for the 2015/16 year.
7. Inspections of food premises are undertaken by Environmental Health Officers to determine if premises comply with prescribed physical and conduct standards in compliance with various statutes and regulations. In addition to looking at the physical components of the premises, the Officer usually sees a food premises in action, so will also inspect operational requirements. Such
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 19 things include perishable food being stored at the correct temperatures, food preparation areas being suitably cleaned, correct food handling techniques and procedures in place that minimise any food contamination.
8. The premises are given either a Pass, Qualified Pass or Fail inspection result. The definitions of these results are:
PASS: Where the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the operator is substantially complying with requirements. QUALIFIED PASS: Where the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the operator is substantially complying with requirements, however some practices and/or requisitions have been identified which require attention. FAIL: Where the Environmental Health Officer has determined that the operator is not in substantial compliance with regulatory requirements. Identified practices and/or requisitions are a food safety concern and require immediate attention.
9. Premises that receive a Fail result are re-inspected to ensure compliance and may be placed on a monthly or quarterly inspection regime to ensure ongoing compliance.
Inspections of Other Premises 10. Environmental Health Officers also carry out an annual inspection of all Hairdressers, Funeral Directors, Offensive Trade operators and Camping Grounds which are required to be registered under the Health Act 1956.
Number of Number of Funeral Number of Offensive Number of Camping Hairdressers Directors Registered Trades Registered Grounds Registered Registered and and Inspected and Inspected and Inspected Inspected During During the 2015/16 During the 2015/16 During the 2015/16 the 2015/16 Registration Year Registration Year Registration Year Registration Year 50 2 13 22
11. The Annual Plan 2015/2016 performance target is that 100% of other registered premises are inspected at least once per annum. This performance target has been achieved for the 2015/2016 year.
Food Stall Permits and Market Inspections
Number of Food Number of Charity Number of Number of Markets Stall Permits Issued Food Stall Permits Non-Charity Food or Events Inspected From 1 July 2015 to Issued Stall Permits Issued During the 2015/16 30 June 2016 Registration Year 272 166 106 14
12. No charge is applied to processing charity food stall applications.
13. The Annual Plan 2015/2016 performance target is for 12 or more market and events to be inspected annually. This performance target has been achieved for the 2015/2016 year.
14. Currently Food Stalls require a permit to occupy public space under the Bylaw and food safety is checked against the Food Hygiene Regulations. The Food Act 2014 will require food stall operators to run under the appropriate risk based measure with many needing to register a Food Control Plan. This may be onerous for some operators and a lot more record keeping than currently required. The food stall operators need to transition to a Food Act registration in the period determined by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 20 Complaints 15. The Environmental Health Team investigates complaints regarding food and food premises, along with nuisances under the Marlborough District Council Bylaw 2010, Unreasonable Noise, Sale of Alcohol concerns and unsanitary housing.
16. Complaints received from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016:
Food hygiene or concern regarding premises operation 21
Sale of alcohol issues 9
Hairdressers conduct and registration issues 3
Camping ground non registration and hygiene concern 4
Nuisance under the Bylaw or contravention of Bylaw 34
Domestic smoke 36
Excessive noise 1042
Unreasonable noise 33
Unsanitary living 9
Alcohol 17. In 2015/2016 Environmental Health Officers carried out 111 compliance checks of the 119 on-licensed premises selling alcohol. This included duty manager on site, availability of no-alcohol and low-alcohol drinks, food availability, transport options and signage.
18. The Licensing Inspectors, in conjunction with the Environmental Health Officers, in the 2015/2016 registration year have a performance measure of checking compliance for 90% of on-licensed premises with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This target has been met in the 2015/2016 year with 93% of On Licence premises inspected during this period.
19. Licensing Inspectors in conjunction with the Blenheim Policing Team carried out three Controlled Purchase Operations (CPO) in the period of 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016. These operations use volunteers to test licensed operators on whether they will likely sell to persons under the legal purchase age. On the one occasion in September 2015, three premises sold to a minor failing the CPO. Each licensee and manager on duty has been prosecuted by the Police and judged by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority.
The Food Act 2014 20. The Food Act 2014 became fully enacted on 1 March 2016.
21. The Act uses a risk-based regime to place operators on either, a Templated Food Control Plan, a Custom Food Control Plan or a National Programme. The applicable risk based measure depends on the type of business it is and what processes they undertake.
22. Over the next three years operators will be required to transition to the new regime following a staggered implementation period and Council Environmental Health Officers are working with operators to ensure this process is as smooth as possible.
23. Workshops and open sessions have been used as a way to communicate with and educate food businesses about their requirements and the steps to their new registration. Surveys were used to
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 21 establish the best days and times to suit the operators. Thirteen daytime sessions and one evening session were held at the Council. Those were followed up with two open sessions for further questions about their template plans.
24. Surveys were sent out to licence holders at the end of the financial year to provide feedback on our licensing process, forms and performance as a team. So far 67 licence renewal surveys have been completed with a result of 9/10 as an average ranking for all of the questions asked.
Summary 25. The Environmental Health Team is working towards ensuring the residents of Marlborough and visitors to the district have confidence that they live and stay in an environment that is safe.
26. Quantity and quality of inspections and audits is managed through consistency by the inspectors and on-going professional development.
27. The Environmental Health Team has achieved their performance targets for the 2015/2016 year.
28. Performance measures are being reviewed to ensure conformance with legislative requirements.
29. The implementation of the Food Act 2014 is underway with operators being educated and assisted in transitioning to their new risk-based regime.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 22 10. Environmental Protection Compliance and Enforcement Activity Summary for 2015/16
(Clr Barsanti) (Report prepared by Graeme Nelson) E360-005-002-01
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Environment Committee with a brief overview of the Compliance activities undertaken by the Environmental Protection Group (the Group) for the 2015/16 year.
2. It provides an overview of complaint response and enforcement activities undertaken by the Group for the 2015/16 year.
3. It provides an overview of how the Group conducts enforcement and recent innovations undertaken by the Group to enhance the enforcement process.
Background 4. Some of the main activities of the Group are:
· Monitoring Consents – this activity will be covered in a subsequent item to the Environment Committee. · Complaint Response – Investigate alleged breaches of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), Resource Management Plans, Resource Consents and Marlborough District Council Bylaws. All complaints received by the Environmental Protection Section are required to be logged and responded to. The follow-up involved in resolving a complaint can vary from a relatively simplistic desk top exercise to a complex investigation and enforcement. · Enforcement – Undertake enforcement action for breaches of the RMA and Marlborough District Council Bylaws.
5. Section Structure: There are currently eight Environmental Protection Officers and a Monitoring Administration officer. The officers operate fixed and rotating roles between Compliance Officers investigating complaints and Monitoring Officers undertaking proactive consent monitoring. A Duty Compliance Officer and Duty Monitoring Officer are rostered on each week.
6. The Environmental Protection Section receives between 400-600 complaints per year. This excludes excessive noise complaints, which are between 1100-1500 per year.
7. Under Section 84 of the Resource Management Act 1991:
(1) While a policy statement or a plan is operative, the regional council or territorial authority concerned, and every consent authority, shall observe and, to the extent of its authority, enforce the observance of the policy statement or plan.
There are various ways of achieving this.
8. One of the main functions of the Group is to undertake enforcement for breaches of the RMA and the Council Bylaws.
9. The main purpose of undertaking enforcement is to promote accountability for regulatory breaches in a manner that is responsible and fair to all parties in accordance with the RMA.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 23 Activity Summary 10. Complaint Response: 539 complaints were received and responded to in the 2015/2016 year.
Number of Complaints Received by Year and Category 700
600
son
400
300
200 I I
100
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
■ Coastal ■ Discharge to air ■ Discharge to land Discharge to fresh and marine water ■ Land and waterbody disturbance Land use ■ Water take
11. The initial compliance status of complaints received is as follows:
10% Compliant, 34% Non-Compliant, 56% Unconfirmed status (this is where an Officer cannot determine the initial compliance status due to the officer not being able to substantiate an alleged offence).
The decision-making Process and Recent Innovations 12. Regardless of which enforcement option is pursued, it is important that a robust, fair and consistent decision making process is followed. Decisions must be made on full facts, not assumptions.
13. To provide consistency, consideration is given but not limited to, a standard range of factors. These include: adverse environmental effects, alleged offender’s culpability, public interest, alleged offender’s attitude and compliance history.
14. The Group follows a standard template when undertaking this process. Each factor is considered and linked to specific evidence. Recently, an Enforcement Decision Tool has been developed reflecting the above factors. It follows a similar structure to the Monitoring Traffic Light system. The Tool was tested by feeding it through various situations and group discussions.
15. Escalated enforcement actions such as an enforcement order or prosecution are referred to Council’s Enforcement and Prosecution Committee to determine.
16. The Group follows the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines in recommendation to the Enforcement and Prosecution Committee.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 24 17. Since last reporting to the Committee, the Group has sent a number of its officers to the Basic Investigative Skills training course run by Waikato Regional Council. This course supports officers to conduct their investigative role to achieve robust evidential sufficiency through best practice.
18. Members of the Group also attend Webinars run by the Law Society from time to time.
19. The Group has also joined AELERT. The Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators network is a well-respected and internationally recognised professional network for environmental regulators across Australia and New Zealand. This forum contains a number of useful resources.
Enforcement options 20. The Group regards enforcement as an escalating process with a spectrum of potential enforcement options.
21. Directive options include letters of direction, abatement notices and enforcement orders.
22. Punitive options include formal warnings, infringement notices and prosecution.
23. There are appeal rights once enforcement has been initiated.
Enforcement statistics 24. In the 2015/16 year: · 18 Formal Warnings were issued. · 12 Abatement Notices were issued. · 20 Infringement Notices were issued.
25. Enforcement action by type:
Enforcement Action by Type and Year 180 i cn
1*4Ui /in
izu1 on
1UU
80
60
40
20
0 = = 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
□ F(jrmal Warnings ■ Infringement ■ Abatement ■ Enforcement order □ Prosecution
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 25 Summary 26. Council has an obligation under the RMA to uphold and enforce its resource management plans. Part of this function is complaints response.
27. To provide consistency consideration is given but not limited to a standard range of factors. Including: adverse environmental effects, alleged offender’s culpability, public interest, alleged offender’s attitude and compliance history.
28. There are a range of enforcement options available.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 26 11. Appointment of Hearings Commissioner
(Clr Oddie) (Report prepared by Abbey McMillan) R450-004-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to present the following person for inclusion on the list of Hearings Commissioners.
Background 2. Under the Marlborough District Council Resource Management Act 1991 Instrument of Delegation the Council may delegate its function as a consent authority to a Hearings Commissioner.
3. Hearings Commissioners can be called on to hear and determine applications for resource consent pursuant to section 34A of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Comments 4. This list of Hearings Commissioners can be beneficially extended with the inclusion of the following person as below:
Mike Freeman 5. Mike is currently working as the Director, Freeman Environmental Limited. Mike’s field of expertise is environmental quality, resource management and water resources.
6. Mike holds a Bachelor of Science (First Class Honours) in Environmental Sciences (Warwick, UK), MBA (Distinction), University of Canterbury and a Ph.D. from Massey University, thesis title: Periphyton and water quality in the Manawatu River, New Zealand. Mike currently holds a Chairs endorsement for Making Good Decisions (expires 30 June 2021).
7. Mike is a published author of a number of articles, including farm nutrient management, improving resource consent conditions, the resource consent process and environmental models. He has also presented at a number of conferences on the topics of ‘resource consents, models and uncertainty’ and ‘nutrients and water quality management’.
8. Mike is a member of a number of professional organisations and societies in resource management and water sciences.
9. Please find the attached CV for further consideration. (Refer Appendix A)
Summary 10. The Council has the discretion to decide who they employ as an independent Commissioner. The above person meets the accreditation requirements of section 39A of the Resource Management Act 1991 and is not a member of the Council or Council staff.
11. Any further expressions of interest to be included as a Council Hearings Commissioner will be forwarded to the Environment Committee for consideration.
12. The Council is not bound to employ the services of a Commissioner once they are appointed before Full Council.
RECOMMENDED That Mr Mike Freeman be appointed to act as a Hearings Commissioner as and when required and that he be advised accordingly.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 27
Curriculum Vitae
Mike Freeman B.Sc., Ph.D., MBA
9 Nehru Place Christchurch 8022 Ph 021-957563 [email protected]
www.freemanenvironmental.co.nz
Curriculum Vitae - Mike Freeman Personal details
Name Michael Conrad Freeman Qualifications B.Sc. (First Class, Hons.), Ph.D., MBA (Distinction) Address 9 Nehru Place, Cashmere, Christchurch 8022 Telephone (021-957563 Email [email protected] Date of birth 31 October 1957 Place of Birth Heswall, Cheshire, U.K. Citizenship New Zealand and British Marital status Married, one daughter (22 years old), one son (19 years old)
Qualifications
Sustainable Nutrient Management Certificate, Advanced, Massey University, 2015.
Sustainable Nutrient Management Certificate, Intermediate, Massey University, 2013.
Ministry for the Environment Certified Decision-Maker, with chairing endorsement, to June 2021.
MBA (Distinction), University of Canterbury, 1994, NZ Organisation for Quality Prize 1993.
Certificate of Proficiency, Natural Resource Policy, Lincoln University, 1989.
Ph.D. (Massey University, Biotechnology Dept.) Commonwealth Scholar 1980-1983. Thesis title: Periphyton and water quality in the Manawatu River, New Zealand. Submitted October 1983, successfully examined May 1984.
B.Sc. (Hons.) First Class. Environmental Sciences (Warwick, U.K., 1980).
Employment history
May 2015 – present: Director, Freeman Environmental Limited
August 2012 – April 2015: Science Impact Leader Environment – Soil & Water, AgResearch
The focus of this position was assisting in the alignment of soil and water research with AgResearch’s goals and coordinating AgResearch’s involvement in the maintenance and development of the OVERSEER® Nutrient Budgets model.
May 2012 – August 2012: Director, Freeman Environmental Limited
August 2011 – May 2012: Principal Environmental Scientist, URS New Zealand, Christchurch
URS NZ Ltd was part of an international engineering and environmental consultancy with over 48,000 employees. My role involved providing a wide range of consultancy services, including: environmental science advice, corporate and management advice, environmental effects assessments and Resource Management Act process advice, to a wide range of private clients, central government agencies and local government.
February 2008 – July 2011: Director, Freeman Environmental Limited
Freeman Environmental is an environmental consultancy specialising in providing advice on environmental quality and water resource management issues under the Resource Management Act.
Specific work undertaken: 1 Curriculum Vitae - Mike Freeman Resource consent and regional plan commissioner roles Preparation of Assessments of Environmental Effects for discharge permit, water permit and related resource consent applications Preparation and auditing of resource consent applications Regional plan development advice, particularly policies and rules Advice on submissions on regional plans and resource consent applications
October 2000 – December 2007: Director Regulation, Environment Canterbury
Responsible for all regulatory responsibilities of Environment Canterbury which primarily include the Resource Management Act, the Biosecurity Act and Navigation and Safety legislation. Staff numbers in the group are approximately 120 FTEs and an annual expenditure budget of approximately $11 million. From 2000 to 2004 (when an additional director position was created) I was responsible for Bovine TB feral vector control contracts (approximately $6 million p.a.) and Environment Canterbury’s Best Practice programmes.
The RMA sections operated on a quasi-commercial basis with full cost recovery from resource consent application and resource consent monitoring functions. Biosecurity functions were funded from a mix of separate rates, general rates and user charges.
October 1996 – September 2000: Group Manager - Resource Regulation, Environment Canterbury. Responsible for all Council’s regulatory activities, Council administration and human resource functions.
Human Resources - Responsible for a Human Resources Manager and two Human Resources Officers carrying out the full range of strategically focused human resource functions throughout the Council.
Administration - Responsible for a team of approximately 18 administration staff including secretaries, administration officers, and telephonists.
Resource Regulation - Responsible for a team of approximately 50 scientific, technical and administrative staff implementing the regulatory elements of the Resource Management Act, the Biosecurity Act, Marine Pollution Act, Harbours Act, Maritime Transport Act, and other legislation.
January 1993 - October 1996: Group Manager - Environmental Monitoring, (Level 2 management position) Canterbury Regional Council. Responsible for a team of approximately 40 scientific and technical staff involved in environmental investigations, monitoring, facilitation and advice, including four principal sections: Environmental Quality, Groundwater Resources, Land Resources, and Rivers and Coastal Resources.
The main functions of this job were to:
ensure that the Council met its natural and physical resource monitoring and investigation responsibilities under the Resource Management Act and other legislation; ensure that appropriate technical advice on natural and physical resources was provided to other groups of the Council; ensure that technical advice, facilitation and support were provided to Regional Council staff and the public on issues relating to resource management. ensure that environmental monitoring and investigation programmes were carried out using appropriate quality assurance to ensure that information users have a high level of confidence in its accuracy; participate in managing the Council through the executive management team; and work with councillors via the Council committee process and informally as the primary interface between councillors and staff.
2 Curriculum Vitae - Mike Freeman November 1989 - December 1992: Pollution Control Manager, Environment Canterbury Management and technical responsibility for a team of approximately 16 professional and technical staff involved in the following areas:
Responsible for consideration of technical issues involved in water right/discharge permit applications involving the discharge of contaminants. Responsible for the Council’s programmes for monitoring the quality of groundwater and surface waters throughout the region. Responsible for management of the Council’s water quality laboratory, with three technical staff. Monitoring and technical advice on management of solid and hazardous wastes throughout the region. Technical input to the formulation of management plans relating to the water quality management, waste management and aspects of land use within the region. Investigation of water resources to provide information for the formulation of management plans aimed at resolving specific resource conflict issues. Input to the territorial authorities planning processes on issues that relate to the protection of water quality and waste management. Coordinating consultation with community groups on issues relating to water right/discharge permit applications and water resource planning initiatives. Reporting and recommending to Council and Council Committee meeting, on monitoring, policy and regulatory matters.
October 1985 - October 1989: Scientist - Groundwater Quality, for the North Canterbury Catchment Board and Regional Water Board. Main activities:
Assessing major water right applications for waste discharges to land and surface waters. Establishing and implementing a regional groundwater quality monitoring programme. Formulating and implementing a regional groundwater quality protection programme. Coordinating with district and regional planners to minimise impacts of development on groundwater quality.
October 1984 - October 1985: Contract Researcher for National Water and Soil Conservation Authority carried out at the Biotechnology Department, Massey University. Research: Evaluating a number of short-term aquatic toxicity tests for use in New Zealand.
October 1983 - October 1984: Hilary V Jolly Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Waikato. Research: Investigating the role of micro-organisms in the biogeochemistry of arsenic in the arsenic-rich Waikato River.
Some recent Publications and Presentations
Wheeler D, Shepherd M, Freeman M and Selbie D (2014) Overseer® nutrient budgets: selecting appropriate timescales for inputting farm management and climate information. In: Nutrient management for the farm, catchment, and community. (Eds LD Currie & CL Christensen). Occasional Report No. 27, Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University.
McKergow L, Elliott S, McKay A, Freeman M and Faulkner T (2014) Maxmimising the effectiveness of farm plans, In: Nutrient management for the farm, catchment and community. (Eds L.D. Currie and C L. Christensen). Occasional Report No. 27. Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University.
Roberts, A, Freeman, M, Power, I, Shepherd M, & Wheeler D (2013) Overseer, New Zealand’s principal nutrient management model, Primary Industry Management, December 2013, pp 6 – 10.
Centre for Advanced Engineering New Zealand, Workshop on Water Quality, Emerging needs for water quality management, July 2011.
3 Curriculum Vitae - Mike Freeman Freeman M (2011) Improving resource consent conditions, Water Journal NZ, May 2011
Freeman M (2011) The resource consent process, environmental models and uncertainty, RMLA Resource Management Journal, August 2011. http://www.rmla.org.nz/upload/files/journals/rmj_august2011.pdf
Water Conference, Rotorua, September 2012, Resource consents, models and uncertainty.
Greater Wellington Regional Council, Seminar presentation, Nutrients and water quality management, November 2011
Some examples of consultancy & commissioner projects
Client Project Dates MPI/MfE/regional Development of Overseer guidance December 2015 – July 2016 council for regional councils consortium Environment Joint commissioner on Schrader January – March 2016 Southland Mains Dairy conversion Environment Joint commissioner on Kakapo Brook September – November Canterbury irrigation and hydro-electiricty 2015 development resource consent hearing Environment Approximately 15 joint or sole March 2008 – June 2012 Canterbury resource consent hearings involving water abstractions, stormwater discharges, wastewater discharges and land use consents Environment Report on impacts of wastewater August 2008 Southland discharges on groundwater quality Otago Regional Joint commissioner on resource October 2009 Council consent hearing for Milton treated sewage discharge Environment Resource consent hearing report on August 2010 Canterbury Timaru treated municipal wastewater ocean discharge Environment Reporting officer on cumulative water January 2010 - Ongoing Canterbury quality of irrigation development proposals in the Upper Waitaki Basin Various Principal in Charge for a range of September 2011 – May resource consent applications 2012 Environment Review of Environment Canterbury October 2011 – March 2012 Canterbury Laboratory Environment The implications of the NES for November 2011 Canterbury Assessing an Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health for the Natural Resources Regional Plan Ministry for the Audit of responses to the biannual November 2011 – April 2012 Environment RMA survey of local authorities
4 Curriculum Vitae - Mike Freeman
Major achievements with Environment Canterbury
The establishment of the Council’s pollution incidence response system in 1992. This service has provided a much needed rapid response system for dealing with a wide range of emergency situations. Successful development of the Council’s first Regional Environment Report in 1995. This report provides a summary of the state of the Canterbury environment that the Council is responsible for managing. This report is now produced each year, under my supervision. Establishment and coordination of the Canterbury local authority staff group to develop a regional strategy for managing hazardous wastes in Canterbury. Initiation and coordination (1999 – 2002) of the joint regional council project to develop Resource Management Act regulatory performance indicators and associated best practice procedures. Coordinated the Regional CEO’s Science and Research Coordinating Committee, 1995- 1997. The main function of this group was to promote and coordinate scientific research and investigations that would provide information to assist regional councils to meet their statutory responsibilities. The committee consisted of six senior staff, including myself, from different regional councils.
Professional Organisations and Societies
Member of: International Water Association N.Z. Water Association N.Z. Freshwater Sciences Society Royal Society of New Zealand Environmental Institute of Australia and Resource Management Law Association New Zealand
Other Interests
I am involved in a variety of recreational activities such as road cycling, tramping, swimming, cross-country skiing, weight-training, and mountain-biking. I usually exercise for at least 30 minutes every day.
I am also involved in outdoor and mountain photography, and have had photographs published in the New Zealand Alpine Calendar and various books and journals. I have climbed many of the 3000m mountains in New Zealand, including Mt Cook by four different routes.
I have had a close involvement with schools that my children attended including being the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees for Ferndale School from 2006-2007.
References
References are available on request.
5 12. Aids to Navigation
(Clr Barsanti) (Report prepared by Harbour Master) H100-005-16
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the on-going management of Aids to Navigation (AtoNs).
Background 2. The Council is responsible for the provision and servicing of 98 AtoN in the region which include, beacons, buoys, channel markers and leading lights. The collective replacement cost of these units is estimated at 1.45 million as of May 2016.
3. These AtoN are a critical component of the Harbour Safety Management System and their operation must comply with international standards as set by the International Light House Authority (IALA). Requirements include minimum response times to rectify light failures, prescribed inspection routines and the establishment of an accurate performance data recording programme.
4. The management of AtoNs was brought ‘in house’ and carried out internally by the Harbour Master’s Team.
AtoNs Update: July 2016 5. Two failures have occurred since the previous report was submitted. Sites of failure were Oke Rock and Kaipupu Point.
6. Otamango Point light in Tory Channel/Kura Te Au experienced technical difficulties but did not fail.
7. A GSM capable light has been installed at Shag Point and enables constant monitoring of the light status and battery. This is very useful and a second GSM light has now been purchased for installation at Robertson Point in Te Whanganui/Port Underwood.
8. Lighting in the Queen Charlotte Sound/Totaranui east of Dieffenbach Point is being reviewed with a view to lighting the deep water shipping channel east of Long Island. A draft scoping report is being prepared.
9. The ‘final draft’ of AtoN management and monitoring database created by ISOVIST was not up to standard and was returned to the supplier. ISOVIST is now making repairs to the database. The delay in this project and launch of the database is frustrating.
Conclusion 10. IALA standards for all lit navigation aids have been achieved for the past six weeks.
Note: IALA specifies 3 categories for AtoN. ‘Category 1’ AtoNs are defined as being ‘of primary navigational significance’ and have the highest availability requirement. Tory Channel Leading lights are the only Category 1 AtoN under the Council control. Over 90% of AtoNs under the Council control are listed Category 2 being defined by IALA as ‘of navigational significance’.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 34 13. Marine Farm Light Audits
(Clr Barsanti) (Report prepared by Harbour Master) H100-004-003-16
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the ongoing marine farm light audits that are being carried out.
Background 2. The Committee will be aware that the Council has reviewed conditions of consent attached to individual marine farm consents. This process included a review of farm lighting requirements.
3. Since authorisation of lighting requirements for individual farms/sites is dealt with under the Maritime Transport Act, this was seen as an ideal opportunity to rationalise the number of lights each farm required and sought to introduce retro reflective tape in conjunction with radar reflectors, where appropriate, in areas where it was considered that lights would be superfluous, particularly on the in-shore side of farms.
4. Since the majority of consents have now been reviewed, an audit to record compliance with lighting requirements has now been resumed, a matter the Marine Farming Association was advised of in advance.
5. Set out below, in tabular and graph form, is a summary of the marine farm areas audited to date. In addition, a graph has been added to show responses received from individual farmers, particularly those who had deficiencies recorded. Farmers are allowed one month within which to rectify deficiencies and to report this to the Harbour Master.
Area Date Farms Farms Farms with 1 Farms with Other Non Responses Inspected Compliant or More Light No Lights Compliance by Due Date Extinguished Operational or Insufficient Number of Lights Fitted
QCS and 12 August 23 11 8 1 3 18 Tory Channel 2015
Admiralty / 29 & 30 73 20 23 0 30 32 d’Urville / September Anakoha 2015
Pelorus 1, 2 & 30 108 48 32 0 28 8 June 2016
Totals 204 79 63 1 61 58
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 35 QCS & Tory Channel
no
90 4
70
50
30
10
^ i-arms t-arms Insutticienf "No" utner Non Kesponses -10 Inspected Compliant Lights/Non Operational Compliance Operational Lights
6. There is still considerable variability with respect to requirements relating to the inshore marking of marine farms and work to clarify matters in conjunction with the Marine Farming Association has been completed.
7. It has also been noted that on several farms more longlines are in the water than is permitted by the resource consent. Where this has occurred, the matter has been referred to the Compliance Unit.
Conclusion 8. The results of the audit undertaken to date are shown in tabular form. It has been noted that there has been a continuing improvement in overall compliance. However, responses from farmers has shown a significant increase.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 36 14. Harbour Fees and Charges - Review
(Clr Barsanti) (Report prepared by Harbour Master) H100-001-01
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of a review of fees and charges applicable to Harbour Functions.
Background 2. As Harbour Authority, the Council provides services to ensure that the region’s waterways remain safe for all users.
3. The Maritime Transport Act 1994 (the Act) at section 33R empowers the Harbour Master to introduce fees and charges: “33R Fees and charges (1) A regional council may, in accordance with section 150(3) to (6) of the Local Government Act 2002, prescribe fees and charges— (a) in respect of any land, building, equipment, or other property that is owned by the council and operated for maritime-related purposes; or (b) for any function, duty, power, or service performed, exercised, or provided by the council in respect of any ship, maritime facility, offshore installation, pipeline, oil transfer site, navigational aid, or marine farm; or (c) for any maritime-related activities the council undertakes; or (d) in respect of navigation generally. (2) The regional council may fix such fees and charges on any differential basis (for example, on the size of a ship, or on the basis of the nature, the location, and use of a facility).”
4. The fees charges relating to maritime safety functions provided by the Council were originally set through bylaw. At a previous Council meeting it was resolved that Harbour fees and charges are reviewed annually as part of the Annual Plan process (Minute R13/14.269 Harbour Activities - 13 February 2014).
5. Below is a table outlining harbour fees and charges as approved by the Council and includes charges for undertaking administrative functions for private benefit.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 37 Category Fee Pilotage Exemption Examination $830 Hot Work Permit Actual time with a minimum of $50 Cruise Vessels (scenic cruising only) $20.00 per metre per visit Cruise Vessels* $20.00 per metre per visit Cargo Vessels* $0.30 per Gross Tonnage Staff Time: Harbour Master $236 per hour Deputy Harbour Master $153 per hour Maritime Officer $128 per hour Administrator $100 per hour Vessel Time: Resolution $360 per hour - includes a crew of 2 Astrolabe $325 per hour - includes a crew of 2 The fees and charges set out above are GST exclusive * Currently being met by Port Marlborough
6. With the replacement of Discovery by Resolution it is necessary to update the table, as highlighted above
Summary 7. The Council provides services to ensure that the region’s waterways remain safe for all users.
8. The Council is empowered to introduce fees and charges in accordance with section 33R of the Act. Existing fees were set through bylaw with the Council resolving that these be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the Annual Plan process.
RECOMMENDED 1. That the information be received. 2. That the Harbour Fees and Charges table is amended by deleting the vessel Discovery and replacing it with the vessel Resolution.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 38 15. Information Package
RECOMMENDED That the Regulatory Department Information Package dated 28 July 2016 be received and noted.
Environment - 28 July 2016 - Page 39