APPENDIX 8 Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment boundary maps

Transcription

1 APPENDIX 8 Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment boundary maps Page 123 of 274

2 Page 124 of 274

3 Te Pu Lake Rotongata Rotongata Kaharoa Tokerau Arahiwi Sheet 2 of 5 Mamaku Sheet 3 of 5 5 Oturoa Tarukenga Ngongotaha Valley 36 Awahou Hamurana ROTORUA Motuohiwa Island Lake Rotoiti Mourea Waiteti Lake Rotorua Ngongotaha Mokoia Island Te Ngae Mataikotare Waikuta Lake Maui Okere Falls Otaramarae Whangamarino Moanarua Tikitere Motumauri Island Rotokawa Lake Rotokawa 30 Pateko Island Lake Ngawhero Lake Okataina Pikiao Marae Lake Te Hapua Hinehopu Hauparu Gisborne Point Ruato Rotoiti Lake Rotongata (Mirror Lake) Lake Rotokawau Lake Rotoatua ROTOITI FOREST Rotoehu Te Whetu 5 30 A Motuwhetero Island Lake Te Rotoroniu Lake Okareka Lake Okareka Te Whekau Lagoon Otumutu Island Sheet 4 of 5 Tikitapu/Blue Lake Lake Tarawera Horohoro Lake Rotokakahi (Green Lake) Kapenga Punaruku Island Sheet 5 of 5 Te Wairoa Punaromia Motutawa Island Waireka 5 Tumunui Green Lake Lake Rotomahana HORIZONTAL DATUM: New Zealand Geodetic Datum 2000 For practical purposes, NZGD2000 equates to WGS84 VERTICAL DATUM: Moturiki PROJECTION: New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2014 Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment map Page 125 of 274 Scale 1: Kilometres INDEX GIS Sheet 1 of 5 Printed 28/07/2014

4 OTUROA ROAD Oturoa OTUROA ROAD AMOORE ROAD MARAEROA ROAD REFERENCE Rule 11 boundary Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater boundary Additional area Land parcel boundary DALBETH ROAD HORIZONTAL DATUM: New Zealand Geodetic Datum 2000 For practical purposes, NZGD2000 equates to WGS84 VERTICAL DATUM: Moturiki PROJECTION: New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2014 Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment map Page 126 of 274 Scale 1: Kilometres GIS Sheet 2 of 5 Printed 28/07/2014

5 AMOORE ROAD MARAEROA ROAD OTUROA ROAD CECIL ROAD KARAMU STREET Mamaku DANSEY ROAD ARAHIWI ROAD ACHILLES ROAD ROTORUA BRANCH SOUTH ROAD REFERENCE Rule 11 boundary Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater boundary Additional area COCHRANE ROAD ENDEAN ROAD Land parcel boundary Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment map Scale 1:50000 GIS Page 127 of 274 Sheet 3 of 5 Kilometres Printed 28/07/2014

6 Ngatautara SOUTH ROAD REFERENCE Rule 11 boundary KEAROAROAD 30 BRYCE ROAD Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater boundary Additional area Land parcel boundary HORIZONTAL DATUM: New Zealand Geodetic Datum 2000 For practical purposes, NZGD2000 equates to WGS84 VERTICAL DATUM: Moturiki PROJECTION: New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2014 Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment map Page 128 of 274 Scale 1: Kilometres GIS Sheet 4 of 5 Printed 28/07/2014

7 Moerangi Tikitapu/Blue Lake TARAWERA ROAD Kakapiko Owhitiki Point BRYCE ROAD Lake Rotokakahi (Green Lake) Punaruku Island Te Kohu Point Te Kotukutuku Point Hopetete Point Motutawa Island Kaiteriria Bay Haparangi Kapenga TUMUNUI ROAD REFERENCE Rule 11 boundary HIGHLANDS LOOP ROAD Tutaeheke HIGHLANDS ROAD Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater boundary Additional area Land parcel boundary Ongahoro WILSON ROAD Tumunui HORIZONTAL DATUM: New Zealand Geodetic Datum 2000 For practical purposes, NZGD2000 equates to WGS84 VERTICAL DATUM: Moturiki PROJECTION: New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 Bay of Plenty Regional Council, 2014 Sourced from Land Information New Zealand data. CROWN COPYRIGHT RESERVED Draft Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment map Page 129 of 274 Scale 1: Kilometres GIS Sheet 5 of 5 Printed 28/07/2014

8 Page 130 of 274

9 APPENDIX 9 Managing properties in the Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment Page 131 of 274

10 Page 132 of 274

11 Managing properties in the Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment Background Current Rule 11 nitrogen rules for the Lake Rotorua catchment only apply to those properties that fall within the surfacewater catchment and the Bay of Plenty region. Applying Rule 11 to the groundwater catchment was considered during the early stages of implementation however uncertainty around the location of the groundwater boundary resulted in the adoption of a surface and regional boundary combination. Estimates of total nitrogen load to the lake have been modelled using the ROTAN groundwater catchment, not the surface water catchment. The nitrogen limit of 435t/yr in the RPS specifically includes stream as well as groundwater flows. Any new rules put in place to achieve this limit should therefore manage all properties in the groundwater catchment that is, rules should apply across all land use activities that contribute to the total nitrogen load. Applying rules to the groundwater not just the surfacewater catchment poses some challenges: The groundwater catchment boundary is not as certain as the surface water catchment boundary Landowners outside of the Rule 11 catchment have not had nutrient rules to date, and have not been engaged in this issue over the last decade Some of the groundwater catchment is in the Waikato region. Certainty in the groundwater catchment boundary To improve our understanding of the groundwater catchment, we sought advice from the Water Quality Technical Advisory Group. A joint GNA and NIWA project was prioritised and a report was finalised in August It provides the best-estimate groundwater boundary using 95% confidence intervals; these intervals represent +/- 200m at the Mamaku Plateau but -640m and +740m at the Awahou and Waiteti catchments. In contrast the 95% confidence intervals for the best-estimate surfacewater catchment boundary represent +/-20m. This indicates the groundwater catchment boundary is less precise, particularly in certain areas. Scale of the issue In order to assess options for managing pastoral nitrogen losses across the whole groundwater catchment, it is important to understand the critical differences between the Rule 11 catchment and the groundwater catchment. Differences in catchment sizes The Lake Rotorua groundwater catchment is larger than the surfacewater catchment by almost 3500 hectares, and larger than the Rule 11 catchment by almost 5000 hectares. Most of this land is within the area of Hamurana Springs. The table below shows differences in the various catchment areas, noting that the Rule 11 catchment is smaller than the surfacewater catchment as the rule only applies to the area within the Bay of Plenty region (that is, some of the surfacewater catchment is in the Waikato region). Page 133 of 274

12 Rotorua Catchment Without Lake (ha) With Lake (ha) Rule 11 catchment (Rotorua only) 40,758 48,827 Surface water catchment 42,258 50,326 Groundwater catchment (GNS 2014) 45,721 53,789 Groundwater catchment (ROTAN 2011) 46,645 54,713 New properties in the groundwater catchment The groundwater boundary captures approximately 81 new parcels as part of the Lake Rotorua catchment. 64 of these would be potentially fall under the new rules as they are over 2ha; 46 parcels are larger than 40ha. 1. Bay of Plenty region In the Bay of Plenty region, an additional 2400ha is captured by the groundwater boundary (see table below). Bay of Plenty region # ha Groundwater: unique parcels Groundwater: parcels associated with Rule 11 properties TOTAL parcels (1049ha) are considered unique in that they are not associated with properties already managed under Rule 11. Any new rules imposed on these 8 properties would be the first nutrient rules that these landowners would have faced. Of the 8 unique parcels in the Bay of Plenty region, sizes range from 0.2ha to 670ha (see table below). Two of these unique parcels also include significant areas of land in the Waikato region. Parcel # Unique parcels in the Bay of Plenty region Bay of Plenty (ha) Waikato (ha) Page 134 of 274

13 parcels (1357ha) are associated with properties already capped under Rule 11. Of these 30 parcels, new rules would only apply to 11 as five are >100ha, three are >40ha and three are >2ha. 19 parcels are less than 2ha and new rules would not apply. If new rules are extended to the groundwater catchment, owners of these 11 affected parcels will potentially be required to substantially change the way they manage their farms. Feedback provided during consultation has indicated that farmers are using their non-rule 11 parcels essentially as insurance policies for example if milk prices drop they can increase production on the areas of land not currently capped. 2. Waikato region 47 parcels in the groundwater catchment fall within the Waikato region. Of these, 18 are in the surfacewater catchment but rule 11 hasn t been applied outside the regional boundary (and all are extremely small (less than 1 acre)). There are 29 unique parcels in the Waikato these make up over 2500 hectares, and parcel sizes are up to 550ha. Of all parcels in the Waikato, approximately 26 are larger than 2 hectares so would be affected by new rules: Waikato region parcels Size Count <2 21 Page 135 of 274

14 Page 136 of 274

15 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Environmental Delivery Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation Executive Summary The purpose of this paper is to seek the approval of the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee for the Programme s approach to managing the development and implementation of the regulatory framework (rules) for removing nitrogen for the Lake Rotorua Catchment. The proposed approach is a framework of support which focusses on providing landowners with tools to manage the change required by the rules. This paper responds to a request made at the last Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group meeting, requesting that staff report back on how the development and implementation of the rules will be managed to support the part of our community directly affected by the rules. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Adopts the Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation. 2 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten-Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). 3 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). Page 137 of 274

16 Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation 2 Introduction At the 15 October 2014 Strategy Group meeting, Rotorua District Council Chief Executive Geoff Williams made the point that, in dealing with change, those affected need to have tools at their disposal to help them cope and adjust to that change. That is, they need to be able to see that there are options available for them to implement and deal with the change and have confidence in that altered future. This explanation resonated with the Strategy Group and staff. It informs the explanation of the framework presented in this paper. There are considered to be two key principles to support framework proposed in this paper: 1 Ensuring that those affected understand that what the rules are asking is reasonable (in the context of the goal), that the process that has bought the decision point of using rules has been robust and fair and that they understand how to have input into the rules (that there is clarity in the steps to the rule-making process). 2 Ensuring there are tools to enable those affected by the changes required by the rules, to implement them. 3 Background The framework for establishing how the Programme will achieve the 320 tonne nitrogen reduction target from the Lake Rotorua Catchment has been a two-year collaborative process. The Programme has worked with the Stakeholder Advisory Group ( StAG ) to debate, change and refine the framework to achieve the nitrogen reduction target for the Lake Rotorua Catchment. Through this collaborative process the Integrated Framework was developed and approved by this Strategy Group as well as, by all Partners individually. The Integrated Framework spreads the responsibility for delivering the nitrogen reduction targets required to deliver sustainable water quality in Lake Rotorua amongst the community (taxpayers and ratepayers) and private landowners. The split is approximately 43% private (rules) and 57% community (from ratepayer and taxpayer funded interventions). The benefits of this collaborative process is that private landowner s interests can influence the design and decision making process. They are provided with information and support to understand the issues and options and are actively involved in debating solutions, bringing their perspectives to the table, but also having the opportunity to listen to and understand other s perspectives. This is considered to be a powerful tool for ensuring views are understood and fair and robust solutions generated. Importantly in the context of this paper, it is considered that the collaborative process assists in some way to preventing and minimising the anxiety and pressure of what could have been a purely regulatory framework when it is introduced. Page 138 of 274 2

17 Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation 4 Support Framework It is considered that there are two principles behind a framework that will provide the required support to the rules project, (the Support Framework). It is suggested that the principles for the Support Framework are prevention and post-prevention interventions. 4.1 Prevention (a) Communication It is critical that there is an effective communication plan and mechanisms in place to ensure that the community understand the reasons for nitrogen reduction, the interventions for achieving the nitrogen reduction targets (including the rules) and in particular, what the rules are and what they mean. Under the Programme s approved Communication and Stakeholder Engagement Plan a communications package is being developed which will specifically address the topic of nitrogen reduction in Lake Rotorua and the package of interventions intended to achieve the required target (rules, incentives, advice and support, gorse and engineering). It is intended that as a result of the implementation of this package the community will better understand the critical messages. (b) Consultation It is crucial that extensive consultation is undertaken through the development of a regulatory framework to ensure that the assumptions behind the rules are correct. Also, in this case, to ensure that the reductions are reasonable, that all alternatives within the rules framework are debated and tested and that the rules adequately control the environmental effects in question. The consultation process that has been run to develop the rules for nitrogen reduction in Lake Rotorua, is substantially over and above the current legislative requirements of the Resource Management Act, primarily in two ways: 1 Rule development has been preceded by two years of extensive collaboration through the StAG. 2 An extensive consultation process over and above legislative requirements (including drop in days, public meetings, letters and print media) has been undertaken on the draft rules, to test the assumptions and reasonableness of those rules. This has been a voluntary process, undertaken prior to the formal consultation and notification processes required by the Resource Management Act which will include two submission periods. The outcomes sought from the additional consultation process recently run were intended to achieve the following in terms of the rules framework: (a) (b) (c) To understand whether it is reasonable. To ensure that those affected fully understand the impacts on them. To test that the balance of costs. Page 139 of 274 3

18 Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation (d) (e) To allow those affected and interested to influence the rules. To ensure they understand that this is a public process that they are encouraged to have input into it. To reduce anxiety and stress the rules may cause when they come into effect by allowing a longer time period to understand, engage and adjust. The Programme is also committed to ensuring that the rules process is adaptive and regularly reviewed in light of new science. If there is a better way of doing it, the Programme is open to that. In addition, the Programme is committed to ensuring that those affected and interested by the rules are resourced to engage in the consultation and collaboration process. The Programme has, supported the Farmers Collective to engage and support farmers in a collective voice and are currently looking at how we can improve support for small block owners and Māori land owners who are not covered by the collective support. (c) Advice and Support Project As part of the $5.5 million dollar funding secured to assist with the implementation of the rules, the Programme has allocated $2.2 million dollars to an Advice and Support Project. The purpose of the Advice and Support Project is to work with those affected by the rules to ensure they understand how the rules affect them and the ways in which they can comply with them. The Advice and Support process essentially uses trained Regional Council staff to make contact with landowners and explain the solutions offered by the Programme. In-particular the project will make links between landowners and independent consultants funded by the Programme (who can be selected by the landowners) and can provide specialist, independent advice on relevant topics (e.g. nutrient management and business management). The purpose of the Advice and Support Project is to assist landowners with meeting the requirements of the new rules. This service will be offered to all landowners affected by the rules and is considered an important and appropriate way for the Programme to provide individualised support and assistance to landowners. As part of the Advice and Support project, those working within the Programme have been working closely with Dairy New Zealand and the Sheep and Beef Industry to develop template Farm Nutrient Plans (the Sustainable Milk Plan and Land Environment Plan respectively) that support the members of those industries. Engaging industry to provide additional support for its members is also considered a crucial part of the support framework for implementation of the rules and this engagement is well underway in the two most affected sectors. Up-skilling Regional Council staff working with landowners in the Advice and Support Project to understand sign of anxiety and stress and have training in how to guide the members of the community they are working with to seek help is also an important part of the advice and support project. All of these initiatives should help prevent anxiety and stress by providing access to information, support and a vehicle to influence. Page 140 of 274 4

19 Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation (d) Alternatives and solutions Solutions to reduce nutrient is a key component of assisting land owners with this change. Some of the following initiatives will assist landowners understand their opportunities to change within the Integrated Framework. Very timely is the establishment of the new Land Technical Advisory Group which will provide the Programme with independent advice and land based nutrient management solutions for water quality. This is an exciting development for the Programme which will provide a robust method for assessing the validity of nutrient management solutions to support the implementation of the rules for nitrogen reduction in the Lake Rotorua Catchment. In addition the Land TAG has the expertise to evaluate the economic, social and cultural impacts of new land uses. Grow Rotorua are investigating alternative low nitrogen land use opportunities and have commissioned preliminary reports on low nutrient horticulture, agriculture and geothermal heat greenhouse opportunities. More detailed investigations are also being made into fresh milk exports dairy exports and free stall barn systems, as well as manuka honey. As part of the funding that has already been secured to support the community in the implementation of the rules (often referred to as the above the line funding), there is currently $3.3 million dollars available to support management and land use change to lower nitrogen. How this $3.3 million will be spent has not yet been decided, but Programme staff have been working on preparing options for this with the aim of reporting back to Strategy Group in early In the mean-time, the Regional Council has commissioned some small scale investigation into alternative management regimes and uses and is happy to consider requests for small scale investigations until the $3.3 million spend is decided. A Solutions Symposium which will assist the community to understand existing on farm mitigation options as well as new alternative land uses is being proposed by Partners and StAG members this will help disseminate information and generate new ideas, for the options to implement the requirements of the new rules. The symposium is expected to run in early Early next year staff will look into opportunities for a buddy system where landowners could travel to other catchments, e.g. Taupō, to meet one on one or in small groups with those who have experienced similar regulatory changes and understand how they have managed that change. (e) Incentives Scheme For those who decide that the rules are not feasible there is also support. The Incentives Fund offers them an option of selling nitrogen to the Programme through the $40 million Incentives Fund. This is a desirable, viable and economic option for some landowners and work has already started on registering interest from land owners in the scheme and will also be explained when Regional Council staff approach landowners under the Advice and Support Project explained above. At a high level this reduces the rules burden on private land owners by taking on board a chunk of the nutrient and cost. Page 141 of 274 5

20 here to enter text. Landowner Support Framework for Lake Rotorua Rules Implementation 4.2 Post Prevention There is the possibility that, for some landowners affected by the rules, the preventative measures explained above will not be enough for them to feel that they have all the tools to enable them to cope with the change. There may also be other extenuating personal circumstances which affect the ability of individuals to cope with this change, outside of any rules introduced by the Programme. Information has been added to the Lakes Programme website to provide information on seeking help for mental health issues. As mentioned above it is also proposed to up-skill Regional Council staff working with landowners in the Advice and Support Project to understand signs of anxiety and stress and have training in how to guide the members of the community they are working with to seek help. The decision for the Programme here is whether it has responsibility for mental wellbeing in terms of the introduction of this legislation. Any legislation places responsibility on persons, these rules will place a responsibility on landowners to mitigate the environmental effects of their activity on the environment. There are issues of precedence and competency in the Programme offering such a support service to landowners affected by the rules. Therefore, the proposed focus is on prevention, offering a supportive framework which provides affected landowners with tools to cope with the change. This approach aligns to the experience and skill sets of the Programme and it is considered it is far better than focussing on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. 5 Financial Implications Current Budget The proposed framework is within current budgets. Future Implications The proposed framework will not affect future budgets. Helen Creagh Manager, Rotorua Catchments for General Manager Environmental Delivery 1 December 2014 Click Page 142 of 274 6

21 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Environmental Delivery Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme Annual Report Executive Summary The year was another successful year for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme. The water quality results for the majority of the deed and non-deed lakes were impressive, with eight of the twelve lakes being at or very close to their water quality targets. Challenges remain in the Lake Rotorua catchment in ensuring that these water quality targets are sustained over the long term. There were are a number of key interventions achieved spanning land, lake, policy, science, communications and programme management across all 12 lakes (deed and non-deed funded). It is considered that these interventions combined continue to help enable our communities realise the benefits of improved water quality. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme Annual Report Highlights from the Financial Year The financial year was another successful year for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme. The attached Annual Report for the programme details these achievements and the approval of the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group is sought for this report. Water Quality Results Of note are the impressive water quality results for the year. All Deed funded lakes showed significant improvements since the commencement of Crown funding in Some non-deed funded lakes also showed improvement. Eight of the twelve lakes were at or very close to their water quality targets set in the Regional Water Page 143 of 274

22 Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme Annual Report and Land Plan. The lakes that met their water quality target included Rotorua, Rotoiti, Ōkaro (water quality in Ōkaro fluctuates and more investigation is needed into this), Rerewhakaiitu and Rotomahana. The lakes that were very close to their water quality target included Rotoehu, Tikitapu and Rotomā. However, there was some continued decline in Lakes Tarawera and Rotokakahi. Work has commenced on a rules needs analysis for all deed and non-deed lakes to ensure that the water quality can continue to meet community aspirations into the future. This is the third consecutive year that Lake Rotorua has met its TLI target. This has largely been achieved through short term intervention of alum dosing. Reticulation has also made an important contribution to the improvement in Lake Rotorua. However, for sustainable long-term water quality in Lake Rotorua, nutrient reductions from land-use are required. The Programme undertook a significant amount of work in the financial year towards achieving these long term reductions by finalising the integrated framework approach to nitrogen reduction in the catchment. The Integrated Framework includes the incentives scheme (on track to become operative in 2015), a rules framework (on track for public notification in 2015) and gorse conversion fund (available now). Key Intervention Achievements The actions on three of the four Deed lakes are now one intervention away from completion, with a nutrient reduction agreement being secured for Lake Rotoehu. This means that all interventions on Lakes Rotoehu, Rotoiti and Ōkāreka are completed with the exception of reticulation at Gisborne point (on Rotoiti). Engagement of the community in helping to identify wastewater solutions for Gisborne Point and Lake Rotomā has been achieved through the establishment of a Project Steering Committee who have engaged with the issue and are considered to be critical see this final intervention come to fruition. During the year a weed harvester was also secured for the programme and has delivered the cheapest nitrogen reductions for the programme on Lake Rotoehu. Lake Rerewhakaiitu continues to show improved water quality. Improvements in this catchment are farmer lead. The primary focus of preparing and implementing a nutrient management plan for each farm is well underway and considered to be the key reason for the lake achieving its TLI. Work on the Lake Tarawera Action Plan has had made progress and will be key to ensuring the future for water quality in this lake. Despite meeting its TLI target Lake Rotorua continues to present challenges in achieving sustainable long term water quality and this will be the focus for the Programme in the coming years with the Integrated Framework (rules, gorse and incentives). A significant milestone was achieved in the year for the Lake Rotorua catchment with the approval of the integrated approach to nutrient reductions on the lake. This clarifies and confirms the approach to achieving suitable long term water quality in Lake Rotorua. Challenges this year with the design of the Tikitere de-nitrification plant have resulted in delays with that project. However, allowing this delay to undertake a scaled back trial and confirm design is considered to be a common-sense approach to this intervention. Page 144 of 274 2

23 here to enter text. Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme Annual Report Programme Management The significant investment in Science continues to be a cornerstone to the Programme s success. In-particular the University of Waikato s Chair of Science Professor David Hamilton and the various Technical Advisory Groups to the Programme provide the necessary expert advice and scientific rigour. The year also saw the approval of an additional Land Technical Advisory Group which will provide the necessary technical advice to the Programme on land based interventions for water quality. Increased rigour has been introduced to the programme management through introduction of risk management, programme management, change management and finance management plans. Changes to the Deed agreement have also resulted in a lot more flexibility for the programme to be managed to achieve its targets through multi-year appropriation and putting the money into a pool rather than allocated to specific interventions. The six monthly surveys showed improvements in programme communication and engagement. The lakes photo competition and the Rotorua Land Innovation challenge were also successful initiatives in raising public awareness of the programme and its objectives and challenges. 3 Financial Implications Current Budget There are no implications for the current budget in approving this report. Future Implications There are no implications on future budgets in approving this report. Helen Creagh Manager, Rotorua Catchments for General Manager Environmental Delivery 1 December 2014 Click Page 145 of 274 3

24 Page 146 of 274

25 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: David Phizacklea, Regional Integrated Planning Manager Submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS and Establishment of Hearing Committee Executive Summary The number and general nature of submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the Regional Policy Statement is provided in this report. The Committee is asked to decide on the make-up of the hearing committee to consider and make decisions on submissions. Submissions on Proposed Change 2 closed on 13 November A total of 35 submissions have been received from a range of organisations and individuals, including 2 submissions received after the deadline. The key matters that have been submitted on are the risk assessment methodology (Appendix K), the scale at which the policy approach is to be applied, the costs of implementing the policy, application of the policy approach to existing uses, natural defences and protection works and potentially confusing terminology. Decisions requested in submissions are being summarised and the availability of the summary will be publicly notified for further submissions in December Hearings on submissions are tentatively scheduled for late April and early May next year. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS and Establishment of Hearing Committee. 2 Establishes a Hearing Committee and under section 34 of the Resource Management Act 1991 delegates to it the consideration of and making decisions on submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the Regional Policy Statement. 3 Reserves to a subsequent meeting the decision on whether to appoint an independent hearing commissioner to the Hearing Committee. Page 147 of 274

26 Submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS and Establishment of Hearing Committee 4 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). 2 Purpose This report updates the Committee on the progress of Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement, and provides a brief summary of submissions received. It also advises on the next steps in the consideration of submissions and recommends the establishment of a hearing committee to consider and decide on the submissions. 3 Submissions Proposed Change 2 (Natural hazards) was publicly notified for submissions on 1 October The submission period closed on Thursday 13 November A total of 35 submissions were received, including 2 submissions received after the close of the submission period. A waiver has been granted to receive these late submissions, under delegated authority. 3.1 Submitters Submissions have been received from a range of persons. A list of submitters is attached to this report as Appendix 1. The region s territorial authorities, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group, an adjacent regional council, the Department of Conservation, energy and other utilities, developers, other companies, community groups and several individuals have made submissions. From a preliminary review of submissions, issues that have generated the most submissions are: the risk assessment methodology (Appendix K) the scale at which the policy approach is to be applied the cost (and the distribution of costs) of implementing the policy application of the policy approach to existing uses, natural defences and protection works potentially confusing terminology. 3.2 Next Steps Staff are preparing a summary of decisions requested in submissions so as to publicly notify the availability of the summary for further submissions in December Page 148 of 274 2

27 Submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS and Establishment of Hearing Committee Following the receipt of further submissions, staff will engage with submitters on specific submission points, seeking technical advice where necessary. Several submitters have requested that the methodology be robustly tested and the results of the testing be circulated prior to the hearing. Staff will prepare hearing reports to assist the process. Those reports will recommend responses to each submission point and will be made available to submitters ahead of the hearings. Arrangements are being made for hearings on the Regional Coastal Environment Plan for March and April Accordingly it is proposed that hearing of Proposed Change 2 submissions be scheduled for late April and early May Hearing Committee A hearing committee to consider and decide on the submissions is required to be appointed. Although the hearing dates are some way off, it is timely to consider this issue now so that sufficient time can be allocated and any preparatory work undertaken. There is no set number of people that must be on a hearing committee. Factors to consider in establishing the hearing committee include that the proposed change is focused on a single topic (natural hazards) and the number of submissions received. Ideally, a hearing committee should provide good geographic representation across the region and include a member or members with an understanding of tangata whenua values and the resource management issue of concern (natural hazards). All members of a hearing committee are required to be accredited under the Ministry for the Environment Making Good Decisions programme, unless exceptional circumstances exist. Councillor Nees (chairing endorsement), Councillor Cronin (chairing endorsement) Councillor Thompson and, subject to confirmation, Councillor Tahana are the elected members currently accredited. The Committee may wish to consider including an independent commissioner on the hearing committee. If the Committee does wish to include such a commissioner, there is sufficient time before the hearing for staff to bring back to the Committee a range of options for its consideration. 5 Financial Implications Current Budget Provision has been made from within the Statutory Policy, Strategies and Plans programme budget for the submissions and hearings process for Proposed Change 2. Costs are primarily related to staff charges in summarising submissions, preparing staff recommendation reports. Other costs include the costs associated with advertising for submissions and further submissions, and legal review (where needed). Sufficient funds remain in this year s budget to progress analysis of submissions, public hearings and decision-making on the Proposed Change. Page 149 of 274 3

28 here to enter text. Submissions on Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS and Establishment of Hearing Committee Future Implications Decisions on Proposed Change 2 are intended to be recommended to Council for approval by the end of the financial year. Ultimately the costs associated with progressing the proposed change once decisions are notified will depend on whether any appeals are made to the Environment Court. Costs will be evaluated as the proposed change moves through the Schedule 1 process. Implementation of the natural hazards policy framework, should it be approved, will require funding provision in the Long-term Plan and/or Annual Plan. Martin Butler Regional Planner for Regional Integrated Planning Manager 1 December 2014 Click Page 150 of 274 4

29 APPENDIX 1 List of Submissions Received to Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS Page 151 of 274

30 Page 152 of 274

31 Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS Submissions Received Original Submitters Submission No. Name 1 L M Barrett 2 Waikato Regional Council 3 Mighty River Power 4 Neville Harris 5 Sustainable Matata Incorporated 6 Sanctuary Point Investments Ltd 7 Te Arawa ki Tai Trust 8 Transpower New Zealand Ltd 9 Taupo District Council 10 Ngati Rangitihi Raupatu Trust Inc 11 Port of Tauranga 12 KiwiRail Holdings Limited 13 Tauranga City Council 14 Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited 15 Royal Forest and Bird Protecton Society NZ (Bay of Plenty Branches) 16 Bay of Plenty Civil Defence Emergency Management Group 17 Whakatane, Opotiki and Kawerau District Councils 18 Carrus Corporation Limited 19 Eastland Generation Limited 20 Western Bay of Plenty District Council 21 Powerco Limited 22 Z Energy Ltd, BP Oil NZ Ltd and Mobil Oil NZ Ltd 23 Catherine Stewart 24 Boffa Miskell Ltd 25 Te Tumu Landowners Group 26 Te Tumu Kaituna 14 Trust 27 Te Tumu Kaituna 11B2 Trust 28 Ford Land Holdings Pty 29 Property Council New Zealand (Bay of Plenty Branch) 30 Zariba Holdings Limited 31 Trustpower Limited 32 Contact Energy Limited 33 Director General of Conservation 34 Rob Paterson Report: Submitters All Page 153 of 274 Page 1 of 2 Produced: 19/11/2014 3:33:04 p.m.

32 Proposed Change 2 (Natural Hazards) to the RPS Submissions Received 35 Rotorua District Council Report: Submitters All Page 154 of 274 Page 2 of 2 Produced: 19/11/2014 3:33:04 p.m.

33 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Simon Stokes, Manager, Eastern Catchments Ballance Farm Environment Award programme Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to brief Council on a presentation the Council will receive from the Ballance Farm Environment Awards Management Committee and Farm Environment Award Trust on the Ballance Farm Environment Award programme for Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Ballance Farm Environment Award programme. 2 Background The Farm Environment Awards have existed nationally since In 2004, The New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust was established. The Trust's core business is promoting sustainable environmental management of land. One of the ways it does this is to run the National Ballance Farm Environment Awards event. It also ensures that any other events or awards run under the New Zealand Farm Environment Award banner stay true to the original idea. The Ballance Farm Environment awards in the Bay of Plenty are directed by the Farm Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty Region). The annual event is run by the Ballance Farm Environment Awards Management Committee. It is this committee which is presenting to you today. 3 About the awards The Ballance Farm Environment Awards aim to identify and reward farming operations that are achieving a high standard across three key factors essential to a successful farming operation: Sustainable Profitability Environmental awareness Page 155 of 274

34 Ballance Farm Environment Award programme Social and community responsibility Good business practice While the Awards are about celebrating winning practices, they are first and foremost focused on learning and knowledge sharing. For those farmers who do not yet feel they are ready to enter, the Awards are an opportunity to benchmark themselves against their peers and receive confidential constructive feedback from a team of three independent assessors. Many people enter the Awards to share ideas and expertise with the wider farming community. A key characteristic of many entrants is a desire to seek innovative and sustainable ways to address limitations encountered in their farming businesses. Each year one farming operation is judged as the supreme winner for the region, and seven additional awards are made across a range of farm types and businesses. 3.1 How the awards benefit the future The awards focus on sustainability. The added value is that new and past entrants learn and are assessed as to their businesses sustainability. There is much advantage in this and many farmers and orchardists enhance their farm or orchard from being involved. Farmers and orchardists have said previously that the benefits to be gained from entering include: Linking sustainable farming practices to long-term profitability The opportunity to discuss practical farm information and business with assessors from arrange of fields Gathering new ideas and different methods from other entrants Confirmation that current farm management practices are sustainable For Council the awards provide another important part of supporting an active community of people in achieving the same outcomes as Council with regards to protecting and managing land, water and biodiversity, while maintaining profitable and sustainable businesses. It is also another key pathway for engaging with the local rural community via the Trust and management committee to encourage and deliver on behavioural change towards sustainability from actually within the rural community region wide. 4 Our Role We have been working with and supporting the farm environment awards for a long time. In December 2008 the Council updated its relationship with the Farm Environment Award Trust and signed a contract agreement with them that changed the way we engage with the Ballance Farm Environment Award programme. Instead of the organisation of the Awards being undertaken by one of our communications advisers or directly paying some of the programme costs we now fund the Farm Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty Region) with a total annual grant of $30,000. The current contract expires in June 2016 and there is provisional budget until 2025 in the current LTP preparations. This assists the Trust in achieving its principal objective which is; Page 156 of 274 2

35 here to enter text Ballance Farm Environment Award programme The advancement, education, assistance and promotion of sustainable environmental management of land and other natural resources on farms within the Bay of Plenty region. The Trust is required as a condition of its contract, to report to the Council after its awards ceremony and supreme winner s field day. Councillor Norm Bruning has agreed to support and participate at committee and Trust meetings. Simon Stokes, Eastern Catchment Manager, is an elected Trustee and attends both committee and Trust meetings, supported by John Paterson, Sustainable Farming Advisor, who is an alternate. Council also provides personnel support for the annual awards and field day, and provides a venue for their meetings and John is an assessment judge. Simon Stokes Land Management Manager (Eastern) 21 November 2014 Click Page 157 of 274 3

36 Page 158 of 274

37 PRESENTATION Ballance Farm Environment Awards presentation by represenmtatives of the Management Committee Page 159 of 274

38 Page 160 of 274

39 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Environmental Delivery Community in Action - Whakamarama Community Inc Presentation on the Blade Development in the Kaimais Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to brief Council on a presentation they will receive from a representative of Whakamarama Community Inc Care Group on their restoration work at the Blade in the Kaimais. The project is supported by the Council s Environmental Enhancement Fund and Care Group programmes. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Community in Action - Whakamarama Community Inc Presentation on the Blade Development in the Kaimais. 2 Background Whakamarama Community Inc (WCI) is passionate about the Whakamarama area, which is rich in cultural, historical and physical features. The Blade access area into the Kaimais is only 30 minutes from Tauranga and caters to a wide range of recreational users. In 2012 WCI successfully campaigned for a 1km road upgrade of the Blade area access for public enjoyment. The road upgrade received funding support from the Council. Recreational use of the area increased significantly and the group identified the need for a toilet facility, a shelter and a looped board-walk along existing tramway sections and through regenerating forest that would be suitable for walkers of all ages and abilities. 3 Benefits The walkway will provide a short, safe and dry circuit for the general public to enjoy the environmental and historical features of the Kaimais. The current walking tracks bypass the swamp, which is one of the most interesting ecological features in this Page 161 of 274

40 here to enter text. Community in Action - Whakamarama Community Inc Presentation on the Blade Development in the Kaimais vicinity and the lack of bridging over watercourses contributes to erosion on the stream banks as walkers pass through them. Interpretation signage and improved facilities will encourage families, schools and tourism operators to visit the area for a cultural and wilderness experience a short drive from Tauranga. The DHB s Mahi Mental Health Activities Team of 15 people will provide additional labour for milling of donated timber and the construction of the loop walk and will learn the benefits of the environment and gain additional construction skills. 4 Our role We have been supporting WCI for 8 years through our EEF and Care Group programmes. In addition to the Blade restoration project, local residents take care of Puketoki Reserve under the name Friends of Puketoki. Ongoing possum and rat control has increased native birds and invertebrates within the reserve and enhancement planting has protected a kilometre of stream along the Patirawa Stream banks leading into the reserve. Donna Watchman Land Management Officer for General Manager Environmental Delivery 1 December 2014 Click Page 162 of 274 2

41 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Greg Corbett, Land Management Manager (Rotorua) NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka Executive Summary The pest plant hornwort (Cerataphyllum demersum) was discovered in Lake Ōkāreka in Council s Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee considered options for managing the incursion at its May 2013 meeting. Staff recommended the Council adopt a containment approach as detecting hornwort at low infestations with current surveillance methods presented several challenges. The Committee accepted recommendation but also directed staff to investigate new surveillance techniques. If new surveillance techniques improved hornwort detection, staff were to re-evaluate to feasibility of eradication. NIWA were engaged to investigate aquatic weed surveillance methods, including the use of remote sensing. In general, they have concluded that Council approach to aquatic monitoring and surveillance is consistent with best practice, but suggest some improvements based on the learnings of this research. They also conclude that current remote sensing technology is not sensitive enough to assist with detecting hornwort at low infestations levels. Given these findings, staff recommends that Council continues with the current containment approach for hornwort in Lake Ōkāreka. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Ōkāreka. Page 163 of 274

42 NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka 2 Notes, staff will adopt and implement the recommendations made in the NIWA report Early detection using surveillance for aquatic weed, October Directs staff to continue with the current containment approach for managing hornwort in Lake Ōkāreka. 4 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). 1 Background The aquatic pest plant hornwort was found in Lake Ōkāreka in 2012 by a local tour operator. Delimiting surveys carried out by Council divers in 2013 discovered light infestations of hornwort over 17.5 hectares of the lake. The incursion was of concern as hornwort occupies broad ranges of habitats when compared to other aquatic weeds. When established, it forms dense beds that dominate all available habitats. It can also be dislodged by water or wind movement and form floating rafts that are moved around the lake by wind and wave action. Hornwort degrades the health of a water body by impacting on: Biodiversity by rapidly colonising and replacing native vegetation in all available habitats. Amenity and recreation by restricting access to and use of water bodies. Stranding s of clumps of hornwort following storms impact on amenity. Staff discussion with the Lake Ōkāreka Community Association indicated strong community support for hornwort to be eradicated from the lake. Staff evaluated an eradication strategy for the lake but believed there was significant risk that it may fail due to challenges in detecting hornwort at low infestation levels in Lake Ōkāreka. This is because water clarity and large infestations of other aquatic weeds, both of which are significant problems in Lake Ōkāreka, limit visibility. These limitations created a high degree of uncertainty as to whether all hornwort present could be detected and subsequently controlled with current surveillance and control methods. Based on this assessment, staff recommended to the Operations, Monitoring & Regulations (OMR) Committee at its 8 th May 2013 meeting that Council implemented a Containment management approach that aimed to minimise the impact of hornwort on recreational, amenity and biodiversity values in the lake at specific sites. After considering the paper, the Committee asked that staff implement the proposed plan while investigating options for improving surveillance and control with the view of carrying out an eradication attempt if new technologies indicated a reasonable chance of success. Page 164 of 274 2

43 NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka Following OMR, staff discussed opportunities for improving hornwort surveillance and control techniques with aquatic pest scientists from National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA), with the view to develop techniques that would make an eradication attempt at Lake Ōkāreka feasible. From these discussions NIWA suggested the following research programme: Literature review on pest surveillance to confirm best scientific practices. Identify potential for remote sensing using new technologies (e.g. remote DNA sensing). Assess current surveillance methods and scope potential for improvement. The research programme was approved and NIWA were contracted to carry out the investigation beginning September 2013 and finishing October Report Outcomes NIWA s report Early detection using surveillance for aquatic weeds: Validating techniques and practices in Lake Ōkāreka is attached to this paper for Committee member s information. NIWA scientists John Clayton and Mary de Winton will present their findings to the Committee. A summary of the report findings is provided below. 2.1 Literature review on pest surveillance The literature review of surveillance methods found in-water visual methods using divers as the most appropriate method for early detection and delimitation of new incursions. Surveillance methods reviewed included passive surveillance (citizen science, shoreline searches, glass bottom boats and viewing scopes), in-water visual methods (snorkelling, SCUBA, manta board tows and scooter) and remote methods (laser line scan, hydro-acoustic methods, underwater video, satellite and aerial image analysis and edna based technology). 2.2 Potential for remote sensing using new technologies Remote sensing methods were investigated to assess the feasibility for use in the Rotorua lakes. Each remote method had advantages and disadvantages for detecting submerged weed species, including environmental limitations such as water clarity, light penetration (this links to depth of plant growth) and local weather conditions. Ultimately remote methods were not considered to be advanced enough for detection use as they relied on visual confirmation to identify submerged weeds. This reliance reduces the efficiency that could potentially be gained using these methods. 2.3 Assessment of current surveillance methods Trials were conducted to compare the effectiveness of current dive monitoring methods. Trials were completed in Lake Ōkāreka in a range of depths and submerged weed coverage. Dive monitoring methods, such as snorkel, snorkel tow, SCUBA, SCUBA tow, manta board tow and scooter, were tested at six 100m trial sites. Each of these methods is currently used by BOPRC divers. Page 165 of 274 3

44 NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka The surveillance methods trialled found systematic underwater searches of potential hornwort habitat gave the best chance of locating new incursions. 2.4 Recommendations from the report NIWA provide four recommendations in the report to build on current surveillance methods, these include: Documenting surveillance sites and tailoring underwater search patterns. Record detail accounts of sites surveyed and methods used for continuity in the programme. Consideration to sonar mapping to provide background information on sites. Generate bathymetry and vegetation biovolume maps to assist with in-water diver surveillance. Create and implement diver training resources to minimise variations in diver abilities. Rotate divers between surveillance visits to combat diver variations in detection ability. Staff accept these recommendations and will be adopting and implementing them in Council s aquatic pest programme. 3 Discussion NIWA s research confirmed the following key points; 1. Current remote sensing methods are not sensitive enough to accurately detect and identify submerged aquatic weeds for new incursion surveillance purposes. 2. Council s current approach to aquatic pest surveillance is sound, though the findings of this research provide opportunity to strengthen the programme. Complexities involved with detecting submerged pest weeds are largely due to environmental factors. This applies to both remote sensing and in-water methods. While divers still have a greater ability to detect weeds than remote sensing, their ability to detect weeds is still limited by vision. Therefore the challenge of detecting hornwort at low infestation levels in lakes with reduced water clarity and high infestations of other weeds remains. These limitations impact on the ability for divers to identify all hornwort present in Lake Okareka. As an eradication attempt would rely on being able to detect all hornwort present (so it can be controlled) staff believe there is a reasonable risk of failure with this approach. Of interest though is that the initial work done to control the known infestations of hornwort in Lake Ōkāreka has been very successful. Monitoring of the treated areas has only detected > 5m² of hornwort plants in the areas that were controlled. Native vegetation is re-colonising the sprayed areas indicating that healthy seed banks are still present despite the heavy infestations of lagarosiphon in the lake. Following staff considerations of the NIWA report, two management options are provided for the Committee s consideration for Lake Ōkāreka. Page 166 of 274 4

45 NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka Management Option 1 - Containment This option would aim to minimise the impacts of hornwort on biodiversity and recreational values at specific sites. By adopting an active containment management programme, the gains made by the initial control programme can be maintained and possibly further improved, within current budgets. Implementation would involve monitoring of areas with high biodiversity and recreational values and carrying out control programmes when hornwort infestation threshold levels were reached. Advantages Provide protection to key biodiversity values of the lake. Minimise the impact of hornwort on recreational values. There would be no additional expenditure required from Council (assuming funding support from LINZ remains at current levels). Would cost less in the short term compared to an eradication programme. Gains made through the 2013 spray programme would be maintained. Disadvantages Some biodiversity values would be lost in areas where hornwort was not being actively controlled. Some impact on recreational and amenity values; o o o Hornwort fragments may still appear on beaches and boat ramp. Hornwort rafts may still form following successful growing seasons. With the known presence in the lake, people may be deterred from using the lake on personal perceptions. There would be some risk of hornwort being transferred to surrounding lakes (this is minimised due to the weed cordon being present at Acacia Bay boat ramp). Would cost more in the long term compared to eradication (assuming eradication was successful). Management Option 2 - Eradication Should Council wish to pursue Eradication, certain risks and costs will apply. Under this option intensive surveillance, control and monitoring efforts would be required annually to ensure a degree of confidence that hornwort is no longer present. For an eradication attempt to be successful, the following criteria must be met: 1. All infestations of hornwort must be identified. 2. All hornwort must be exposed to the control. 3. All plants must be vulnerable to the control. 4. Hornwort must be found and killed faster than they can spread. Page 167 of 274 5

46 NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka 5. Re-invasion must be managed. 6. Support to the programme must be given by affected parties. Advantages Progress made with 2013/14 spray effort will be retained and improved upon. Assuming eradication is possible, this approach will cost less in the long term. Biodiversity values will recover to their pre-incursion state and will potentially be enhanced through control activities. Impacts on recreational values will improve to the pre-incursion state. Likely to be strongly supported by the community and stakeholders. Risk of hornwort being transferred to another lake would be limited to the period needed to achieve eradication. Disadvantages It will be difficult to confirm eradication from the lake. High short term costs. Intensive use of herbicides may not be desirable or acceptable to some stakeholders and sectors of the community. Considerable risk that eradication may not be successful as detection of all hornwort present may not be possible. Should annual trends begin to show eradication is unlikely; a modified management approach will need to be considered by Council. Cost table for Eradication option The costs provided below do not include the costs of actual control work as we anticipate that these will be covered by LINZ. ERADICATION OPTION COSTS Component Cost Pre & Post spraying (45ha) $ 63, Diver surveillance (8 days) $ 20, Boat & skipper (8 days) $ 2, NIWA training (1 day) $ 1, Divers (x4) training (2 days) $ 5, ANNUAL TOTAL $ 93, YEAR TOTAL $ 931, *Pre and post spray will be subject to change from year to year depending on the amount of hornwort required to control. Note, this cost assumes no funding support from LINZ. Staff recommends that Council adopt option 1: Containment as eradication would commit Council to considerable additional expenditure with an unknown likelihood of success. Page 168 of 274 6

47 here to enter text. NIWA investigation on aquatic monitoring techniques and practices - Lake Okareka 2 Financial Implications Current Budget If the committee accepted the recommended option there would be no implications for the current budget. If the Committee directs staff to pursue eradication of hornwort in Lake Ōkāreka, then staff will seek Council approval to overspend the biosecurity budget by $78,580 (this being the additional cost of pursuing eradication over the planned containment work). Future Implications Providing LINZ continues to support control work within Lake Ōkāreka, there will be no budget implications for continuing the recommended containment approach. If the Committee directs staff to pursue eradication of hornwort in Lake Ōkāreka, an additional $785,800 will be needed for the next Long Term Plan budget (i.e., $78,580 per year). Steph Bathgate Land Management Officer for Land Management Manager (Rotorua) 24 November 2014 Click Page 169 of 274 7

48 Page 170 of 274

49 SUPPORTING DOCUMENT - Early detection using surveillance for aquatic weeds Page 171 of 274

50 Page 172 of 274

51 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: Sarah Omundsen, Programme Leader (Water Policy) Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process Executive Summary The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) requires regional councils to establish objectives and set limits for freshwater in their regional plans by Our Regional Council has a plan in place to implement the NPS within this timeframe through a combination of regional as well as catchment based action. The Regional Council has already agreed to progress the limit setting process in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas, noting that staff will work with local communities throughout the process. This paper presents options for working with the community in each of the Areas and outlines the preferred approach of each of the co-governance entities for their involvement in the process. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process. 2 Agrees that Option 2 - Involve (Schedule 1 process) is the preferred approach for working with communities in the limit setting process. 3 Approves staff commencing a procedure to establish community groups in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas. 4 Agrees that staff will work with the Rangitāiki River Forum and Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority in the process to identify limits in their respective Water Management Areas 5 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Page 173 of 274

52 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process 2 Background Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) requires wideranging, staggered and long-term improvements to how fresh water is managed in New Zealand. Setting water quality and water quantity limits, and managing to these limits, is a critical part of the NPS. Setting and managing to limits requires a change to the Regional Water and Land Plan. Although time consuming and costly, it s a relatively straightforward process (see Figure 1). The time and cost involved depends on the intensity of the development process and level of engagement undertaken. There is an expectation through Central Government that a more collaborative approach to planning with communities will be used to set objectives and limits for their water bodies. The Regional Council has already agreed to progress the limit setting process in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas, noting that staff will work with local communities throughout the process. 2.1 Decisions to date The Bay of Plenty Regional Council notified its NPS Implementation Programme in The Programme confirmed the key pieces of work to be done to meet the requirements of the NPS, and outlined a staged approach to implementation. As part of the Regional Council s NPS Implementation Programme nine Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the region were adopted in August These Water Management Areas were put in place to allow the Council to focus resources and work when setting values, objectives and limits at a catchment based level with tangata whenua and communities. In February this year, Regional Council directed staff to commence this limit setting process in two of the Water Management Areas: The Rangitaiki Water Management Area The Kaituna/Pongakawa/Maketū Water Management Area. During Long Term Plan discussions, Councillors asked whether or not staff could accelerate work on implementing the NPS and potentially set limits by At the October meeting of this Committee it was resolved to retain the status quo and implement the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management as planned by Decisions are now required on the way in which staff will work with local communities in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Pongakawa/Maketū Water Management Areas in order to progress the limit setting process. Page 174 of 274 2

53 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process 3 Level of community engagement - options Options for engaging with the community in a limit setting exercise (culminating in a plan change) can be expressed as positions on a spectrum, from simple consultation at one end through to empowerment at the other. Empowerment is taken to mean the delegation or handing over of decision-making (either formally or by agreement) to community representatives. The following table has been adapted from the most commonly referred to engagement spectrum developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). It provides an explanation of the levels of engagement and examples of the types of issues that have previously been undertaken by Council within each of these. Page 175 of 274 3

54 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process As it is a spectrum, there can be combinations of approaches used in different situations and different approaches may be used at different stages of a process. In order to get started in the Water Management Areas we need to identify the level of engagement that Council is seeking from the community in the freshwater limit setting process. Staff consider there are essentially three options available: Option 1 - Consult (Schedule 1 process): this is standard Council practice for plan changes. We develop values, objectives and limits internally, and consult/engage throughout the process. This includes consulting on various drafts prior to formal notification, as well as holding targeted workshops etc. with communities and stakeholders to test scenarios and options. It is the simplest option available, requiring the least amount of both resources and time, but consequently generates little buy-in from the community. It is also relatively risky as freshwater reform and the Land and Water Forum (LAWF) have raised expectations we will work more closely with local communities and involve them in developing local solutions. Option 2 - Involve (Schedule 1 process): this is where we work with targeted groups and seek their advice throughout the policy development phase, including what the values and objectives are, and what the options for limits should be. Staff retain responsibility for policy formulation but develop the policy iteratively by involving the community. Regional Council ultimately retain decision-making authority. Examples include Healthy Rivers and the supporting Stakeholder and Technical Groups (Waikato Regional Council). It is more resource intensive and complicated than option 1, and potentially more time consuming but should result in a greater level of buy-in from the community. Page 176 of 274 4

55 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process Option 3 - Collaborate (Schedule 1 process or alternative process): this is where we would work together on the development of values, objectives and limits and a collaborative group/s would be required to reach consensus on a recommended regulatory framework that Regional Council would then adopt through a plan change. Examples are the Zone Implementation Committees in Canterbury. This option is likely to require more resources than either option 1 or option 2. Based on experiences in the Rotorua rules project and elsewhere, it would be considerably more time consuming and difficult to reach an end point, although community buy-in would be high. Government intended to amend the RMA to include an alternative process to Schedule 1 for such collaborative processes, but no progress has been made at this stage. Given the lack of direct guidance available under the RMA (including where appeal rights lie etc.), it is a risky option. Staff consider Option 2 Involve (Schedule 1 process) to be the most appropriate option for both Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa and Rangitaiki limit setting processes. Unlike some other processes used elsewhere which can become very resource intensive to sustain, this option signals that while Council will work with the community this is not a consensus decision-making process. Recommendation: Agree that Option 2 - Involve (Schedule 1 process) is the preferred approach for working with communities in the limit setting process. 4 Involving communities in the limit setting process There are a lot of different ways we can involve communities in the limit setting process. The most common approach being used around the country is to set up a community group that will work directly with the Regional Council. The community group would partner from start (baseline knowledge) to finish (consulting on the framework) as shown in the Development phase in Figure 1. This may involve bringing in specialist technical advisors when needed or holding smaller meetings to gather feedback from communities of interest for a particular area within a catchment. Essentially it is a fluid process of gathering all the relevant information the group feels it needs to make informed choices. The underlying premise being that members of the community group are able to gather information from and feed information back to the sector of the community they represent. Staff consider that this approach is appropriate for limit setting in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Pongakawa/Maketū Water Management Areas. 4.1 Community group s role within the regional context The purpose of the community group is to enable a local conversation on values, objectives and limits to take place at a local scale (e.g. in Water Management Areas). To allow community groups to remain focussed on the local context a Regional Water Advisory Panel was established in February this year. The purpose of establishing the Panel was to provide an avenue for Council to engage with Page 177 of 274 5

56 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process stakeholders on region-wide water issues, such as the Regional Water Management Strategy as well as the water allocation and minimum flows plan change. The Panel provides a clear demarcation between regional and local conversations, as those with a regional or national focus will have contributed or will be contributing via the regional forum. 4.2 Setting up community groups Staff views Workshops with staff from across the organisation who work in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas were held to determine the best approach for setting up community groups in each of the Areas. Feedback received was: that establishing a single community group would be appropriate for both the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas that the group should be made up of members that represent the various community interests within each of the Water Management Areas - including iwi, councils, farmers, lifestylers, forestry, care groups, recreational users and residents that a formal process should be put in place to determine membership of such a group, e.g. expressions of interest sought/ selection panel convened/ formal appointments to community group made. A formal process was preferred by staff as shoulder tapping could potentially cause risks that people would undermine the outcomes of the group based on a lack of community support behind the members Terms of reference The Terms of Reference for the groups will need to be carefully prepared to ensure the expectations of members and their roles are clear. In particular, the groups will not be set up with decision-making authority; rather the groups will be expected to provide advice and recommendations through the policy development process. They will work together to identify the objectives for freshwater bodies within their Water Management Area and contribute to the development of appropriate limits for those water bodies. The following is the recommended key purpose and primary role of the group: The key purpose of the Group: to facilitate community involvement in the objective and limit setting process required under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. This group will inform and guide decision making through the NPS process. The primary role of members: to assist in identifying the freshwater objectives for freshwater bodies within their Water Management Area, contribute to the development of appropriate limits for those water bodies and provide community connections. Page 178 of 274 6

57 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process The Terms of Reference will also cover other administrative matters around the group s operation (such as membership, meeting frequency, and honoraria and reimbursement). A twelve month work programme will be developed and agreed within three months of the Community Group being established. Recommendation: Approve staff commencing a procedure to establish community groups in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas. 5 The role of co-governance entities in limit setting The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 states the following under section D. Tāngata whenua roles and interests. Objective D1 To provide for the involvement of iwi and hapū, and to ensure that tāngata whenua values and interests are identified and reflected in the management of fresh water including associated ecosystems, and decision-making regarding freshwater planning, including on how all other objectives of this national policy statement are given effect to. Policy D1 Local authorities shall take reasonable steps to: a) involve iwi and hapū in the management of fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region; b) work with iwi and hapū to identify tāngata whenua values and interests in fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region; and c) reflect tāngata whenua values and interests in the management of, and decision-making regarding, fresh water and freshwater ecosystems in the region. Guidance around how the mandate for co-governance fits within a community process established to set limits for freshwater, respecting the mana and work of existing forums and partnerships, has not been provided by Central Government. Regional Council considered it appropriate that the relevant co-governance forums identify the way they would prefer to work with communities and the Regional Council in the limit setting process. A series of workshops have been held with both the Rangitāiki River Forum and Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority to ascertain the way in which each entity would prefer to be involved in this process. 5.1 Rangitāiki River Forum The Rangitāiki River Forum has expressed a preference for taking a leadership role in the limit setting process in the Rangitāiki Water Management Area. If agreed by this Committee, staff will work with the Forum to undertake the limit setting process for the Area. This preferred approach would operate in a similar manner to how the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group (RTALSG) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group Page 179 of 274 7

58 Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process (StAG) currently operates. That is, staff and the community group work together to identify objectives, agree on limits and develop policy. The role of RTALSG is to endorse the recommended approaches, and Regional Council ultimately makes the decision on any changes to the Regional Water and Land Plan that may be required. Under this approach undertaking the process of limit setting in the Rangitāiki Water Management Area would become the responsibility of the Forum. Such a delegation would simply sit alongside the Terms of Reference of the Forum, as the limit setting work clearly fits within the purpose of the Forum: the protection and enhancement of the environmental, cultural, and spiritual health and wellbeing of the Rangitāiki River and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations. If this approach is agreed by Council, the governance and approvals process will be clearly defined and authorised to ensure roles and responsibilities are understood by all involved. 5.2 Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority has also expressed an interest in taking on some kind of leadership role in the limit setting process. They are however focused on developing their River Document as set out in their Terms of Reference and will ensure that this work is a priority A resolution was passed by the Maru at their 18 November meeting that identified a preferred approach for Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority involvement in the Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Area limit setting process. However, the decision was not unanimous and it is the view of staff that the specifics of how and when the Maru is involved may need to be further worked through with the Maru. Staff are planning to meet with iwi to discuss their concerns. The synergies that exist between the information gathering requirements for both the Kaituna/Pongakawa/Maketū limit setting process and the functions of the Maru as identified in their Terms of Reference means that work can commence while these ongoing discussions occur. As the geographical boundaries of the Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Area are much larger than the area of interest of the Maru there is an added complexity that also needs to be addressed but that can be accommodated. 5.3 Models for engagement There are a lot of ways we can work with the respective co-governance entities as well as involve communities in the limit setting process. The social, cultural and environmental landscape within each Water Management Area will determine the most appropriate course of action. The differing preferences expressed by each co-governance entity are a reflection of this difference in landscape and the space that each entity is currently working in. Ultimately this difference in preference doesn t change the fundamental process to be undertaken as shown in Figure 1 of this report, it simply influences the way in which Council will engage with iwi throughout that process. Page 180 of 274 8

59 here to enter text. Working with communities in the NPS limit setting process Each of the co-governance entities have given a clear signal that they want to be a part of the process, in terms of governance as well as at the community group table. If approved staff will commence work on designing the roles and responsibilities to suit the preferred approach of each of the respective entities. Recommendation: Agree that staff will work with the Rangitāiki River Forum and Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority in the process to identify limits in their respective Water Management Areas. 6 Next Steps The limit setting process in the Rangitāiki and Kaituna/Maketū/Pongakawa Water Management Areas is scheduled to commence early in If agreed, staff will work on establishing community groups. This will include working with each of the co-governance entities to determine specific roles and responsibilities. A formal appointment process and Terms of Reference for community groups will also be developed as part of the planning for each Water Management Area. 7 Financial Implications Current Budget Work to set limits will be required to proceed regardless of the option chosen in this report and has been included within existing budgets. Costs to run a community group have been estimated based on previous projects. For example, in 2013/14 the Lakes Programme paid $167,000 for contractor costs (secretariat and support, chairing, venue hire and catering) and approximately $14,000 in member attendance fees for the Lake Rotorua Catchment Stakeholder Advisory Group. Future Implications Any actions that fall out of planning for Water Management Areas that have future financial implications will have to come back to this Committee for approval. Freya Camburn Policy Analyst (Natural Resources Policy) for Programme Leader (Water Policy) 1 December 2014 Click Page 181 of 274 9

60 Page 182 of 274

61 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Regional Direction and Delivery Committee Meeting Date: 09 December 2014 Report From: David Phizacklea, Regional Integrated Planning Manager Outstanding Appeals to Change 1 (Coastal Policy) to the Regional Policy Statement Executive Summary The two remaining appeals to Proposed Change 1 (Coastal Policy) to the Regional Policy Statement have now been resolved. These concerned the natural character ranking, extent and attributes for the area around Motiti Island and for Ōkurei Point (Maketū headland). On 26 and 27 May 2014 the Environment Court heard applications by Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Lowndes Associates and Motiti Avocados Ltd to strike out the remaining appeals by the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust and Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust on Variation 1 (Coastal Policy) to the (then) Proposed RPS. The applications were largely successful and the majority of previously Variation 1 was made operative when the Regional Policy Statement became operative on 1 August A second Environment Court hearing was held on 13 November 2014 at Mount Maunganui. The Court issued its decision by way of consent order settling the Ōkurei Point natural character area, including Māori translations for the natural character attributes. This followed a period of negotiation with Ngāti Mākino Heritage Trust. Negotiations with Motiti Rohe Moana Trust on Motiti Island reefs and natural features have been more difficult; but agreement has also been reached requiring the development of attributes similar to those agreed with Ngāti Mākino. The Court has set a strict timeframe for this to occur and will make a ruling should there be any remaining disagreement between parties. The Court s decision also ruled that no macrons are to be used on Motiti as a word. The RPS will be amended (affecting one additional operative page) to give effect to this ruling though issues remain with Motiti spelling in other documents. 1 Recommendations That the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Outstanding Appeals to Change 1 (Coastal Policy) to the Regional Policy Statement. Page 183 of 274