Agenda of Monitoring and Operations Committee

Item No.	Subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	When the item can be released into the public
9.9	Resource Consents Process: Customer Service Deep Dive Insights and Next Steps - Attachment 1 - Regional Council - Guts (consultants) - Public Excluded	Withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(a).	To remain in public excluded.
9.9	Resource Consents Process: Customer Service Deep Dive Insights and Next Steps - Attachment 2 - Regional Council - Guts (Tangata Whenua) - Public Excluded	Withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(a).	To remain in public excluded.
10.1	Public Excluded Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes - 15 September 2020	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.

Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes

15 September 2020

Monitoring and Operations Committee

Open Minutes

Commencing: Tuesday 15 September 2020, 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

Chairperson: Cr Kevin Winters

Members: Cr David Love

Cr Bill Clark

Cr Stuart Crosby

Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti

Cr Jane Nees

Cr Stacey Rose

Cr Paula Thompson (via Zoom)

Cr Lyall Thurston (via Zoom)

Cr Andrew von Dadelszen

Cr Te Taru White

In Attendance:

Apologies: Chairman Doug Leeder, Cr Matemoana McDonald, Cr Norm Bruning (late arrival), Cr Te Taru White (early departure)

1. Apologies

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Accepts the apologies from Chairman Doug Leeder, Cr Matemoana McDonald, Cr Norm Bruning for late arrival and Cr Te Taru White for early departure tendered at the meeting.

Rose/Iti

CARRIED

2. Order of Business

Item 10.1 – Public Excluded Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes 16 June 2020 would be taken after item 10.3 – River Scheme Sustainability Update to accommodate presenters.

3. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Cr Crosby declared an interest in item 9.2 – Mount Maunganui Industrial Airshed Update and Cr von Dadelszen declared an interest in item 6.10 – Regional Wetlands Report.

4. Minutes

Minutes to be Confirmed

4.1

Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes - 16 June 2020

Matters Arising:

· An update on the Tauranga Marae OSET project would be provided to the next Monitoring Operations Committee scheduled for 15 December 2020.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Raised concerns over air quality in the Judea area and requested an update at the next meeting.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Confirms the Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes - 16 June 2020 as a true and correct record.

Rose/Iti

CARRIED

5. Presentations

5.1

Update on Glass Eel sampling on the Rangitāiki Awa

Presentation - Glass Eel Research on the Rangitāiki Awa: Objective ID A3628295

NIWA Freshwater Fish Ecologist Dr Eimear Egan and NIWA PhD Masters Student Siobhan Nuri presented this item.

Key Points:

· The earbones of the fish, known as otoliths, were similar to a fish’s diary and an important source of information for scientists

· Very little was known about the marine lifecycle of eels

· Rangitāiki River had the second longest database of eel populations in the country and was a nationally significant site

· The population was monitored but not the glass eel life stage

· The ocean was changing in New Zealand with sea surface temperatures warming and there was a vulnerability of species to climate change

· Migration of the glass eel into the river and up the river was less known

· Working on relating catches to environmental data e.g. barometric pressure.

Key Points - Members:

· Commended the work and commitment involved in this research.

In Response to Questions:

· A major challenge addressing the threat to extinction was that there was no glass eel monitoring in New Zealand, therefore no baseline data available to work from or gain an understanding of fluctuations and the numbers coming in from the sea

· Barriers to heke migration included dams, weirs and culverts

· Understanding the ocean and building this knowledge into predictions could assist in better understanding of what was driving decline in the species

· Data to date plotted against the Maramataka showed a strong relationship with lunar phases for fishing

· Some observations of whitebaiters were that it was possible to catch glass eels without realising, so community awareness and knowledge exchange were important

· No progress had been made in New Zealand for breeding eels in captivity

· There were opportunities for mana whenua to assist with monitoring data for a longer term database of an integrated monitoring programme.

Item for Staff Follow Up:

· Requested a report to the Committee every six months on progress and to be kept informed of any requirements or assistance needed

· Councillors to receive the next Trustpower fish passage update from the Rangitāiki River Forum.

6. Reports

6.1

Chairperson's Report

Chair Cr Winters and General Manager Regulatory Services Sarah Omundsen presented this item.

Key Points:

· All new structures had to be compliant with new fish passage requirements.

In Response to Questions:

· Given compliance issues observed with water takes and reporting, this area would be targeted as a priority

· A critical part of the policy lifecycle was keeping a record of implementation issues, both in terms of consenting as well as compliance. Staff keep a detailed record of all issues needing to be addressed for the next review cycle.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Chairperson's Report.

von Dadelszen/Winters

CARRIED

Decisions Required

6.2

Mount Maunganui Industrial Area Update

Compliance Manager – Urban, Industry and Response Stephen Mellor, Senior Regulatory Project Officer Reece Irving and Senior Regulatory Project Officer Sam Weiss presented this item.

Key Points - Staff:

· The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) methyl bromide reassessment process was public and included a range of submitters.

· Tauranga City Council had been updated about the intention of the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party establishment and advised that once the Terms of Reference (ToR) were approved a formal invitation would be sent.

In Response to Questions:

· Fumigation distances referred to in the report were recommended by EPA staff to the decision-making committee as part of the methyl bromide reassessment underway

· The decision-making committee had requested further modelling information, which would be peer reviewed before a decision was made

· Minutes from the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party would be included in future Monitoring and Operations Committee agendas.

Cr Crosby declared an interest in the resolution pertaining to the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working party and abstained from voting.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Medical Officer of Health to be specified in the Bay of Plenty District Health Board representation under the Working Party’s ToR.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Mount Maunganui Industrial Area Update;

2 Approves the draft terms of reference for the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party;

3 Appoints the Tauranga and Mauao constituency councillors to the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party

Winters/Rose

CARRIED

Cr Crosby and Cr White abstained from voting.

6.3

2019/20 Annual Report for the Regional Pest Management Plan

Biosecurity Manager Greg Corbett and Biosecurity Team Leader Shane Grayling presented this item.

Key Points:

· Cape Tulip was the only new incursion discovered through surveillance in the past year, which was considered a pest plant of national interest and managed by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI)

· Despite the significant impact from the Covid-19 pandemic and alert levels there were no long term implications expected, with the possible exception of catfish breeding.

In Response to Questions:

· A new system was being developed to address the current issue of gaps in data for Regional Pest Management Plan Indicators

· Gorse was currently addressed through a boundary complaint issue which needed to come from an adjoining landowner to trigger a compliance process.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Staff to liaise with Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency regarding the issue of gorse near the railway and side of the road on State Highway 2 and Pacific Coast Highway to Whakatāne

· Sellers of plants had been made aware of the illegality of selling pest plants such as pampas, but florists may not have been and it was important they were made aware also.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, 2019/20 Annual Report for the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Thurston/White

CARRIED

Information Only

6.4

Review of the 2020 Drought and Water Shortage Event

Presentation - Standard Precipitation Index - Aug 2019 v Aug 2020: Objective ID A3628293

Data Services Manager Glenn Ellery and Regulatory Compliance Specialist Steve Pickles presented this item.

Key Points:

· The Water Shortage Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) was a good start and building upon this would be important leading into the coming season as it could potentially be the third year in a row with dry conditions.

In Response to Questions:

· Numbers on the Standard Precipitation Index indicated deviations from long term normal rainfall

· The effects of dry weather were being seen more on the shallow ground wells than the bores at the moment

· The cumulative effects from a number of years with low rainfalls would start to become apparent and would be monitored closely

· A decision matrix was being developed to look at a number of impacts in order to make future decisions on water shortage events.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Review of the 2020 Drought and Water Shortage Event.

Crosby/Rose

CARRIED

11.05 am – The meeting adjourned.

11.17 am – The meeting reconvened.

6.5

An Overview of Wastewater in the Bay of Plenty Region

Compliance Manager – Primary Industry and Enforcement Alex Miller presented this item.

In Response to Questions:

· All non-compliances for territorial authorities (TAs) went through the same enforcement decision making process as any other consent holder.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Further information to be provided regarding short, medium and long term solutions for Whakarewarewa forest irrigation block

· Requested a report on performance as a regulator in terms of wastewater and stormwater.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, An Overview of Wastewater in the Bay of Plenty Region.

White/Rose

CARRIED

6.6

Resource Consents Annual Report 2019/20

Consents Manager Reuben Fraser and Consents Team Leader Hamish Dean presented this item.

Key Points:

· There were two corrections to the agenda report:

o Page 172 – The process status of the Transpower case was with the High Court, not completed as stated

o Page 173 – 6.1 Risks and Mitigations should read ‘there are no new risks associated with the matters reported here’.

In Response to Questions:

· There were generally two reasons that consents would be processed by consultants:

o To manage capacity of the consent planners as the workload fluctuated

o To manage potential conflicts of interest, e.g. where the regional council was the applicant.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Resource Consents Annual Report 2019/20.

Iti/Love

CARRIED

6.7

State of the Environment Reporting in the Bay of Plenty

Science Manager Rob Donald presented this item.

Key Points:

· Approximately 1000 sites were currently being monitored at different intervals during the year and this was increasing

· Monitoring requirements were becoming more prescriptive

· Communities became more aware of the environment during Covid-19 lockdown.

In Response to Questions:

· There was demand for further monitoring and information

· PhD and Masters Degree Theses across the region were monitored through the University Chairs.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Members requested information on the number of hits on the live feed data portal

· Collation across entire suite of natural resource investigations

· There was potential for increased capacity for communities to participate in monitoring, particularly with iwi.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, State of the Environment Reporting in the Bay of Plenty.

Nees/Love

CARRIED

6.8

National Wilding Conifer and Wallaby programmes

Biosecurity Manager Greg Corbett and Biosecurity Team Leader Shane Grayling presented this item, supported by Te Arawa Lakes Trust (TALT) Environment Manager Nicki Douglas.

In Response to Questions:

· A consistent response had been received from people wanting to participate in the programme

· Controlling wallabies and wilding conifers was high risk work, therefore health and safety was paramount and there was also a strong emphasis on this coming through from Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in their expectations of how funding agreements would be managed.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, National Wilding Conifer and Wallaby programmes.

Rose/Crosby

CARRIED

6.9

Investigating a Potential Biocontrol for Brown Bullhead Catfish

Presentation - Catfish Biocontrol: Objective ID A3628294

Biosecurity Office (Aquatic Pests) Lucas MacDonald and Biosecurity Manager Greg Corbett presented this item.

Key Points:

· Te Arawa Lakes Trust expressed full support of the proposal and the research programme.

In Response to Questions:

· From MPI’s perspective if there was a trade e.g. money changing hands then there would be permitting and licensing involved

· Catfish were not a sport fish and Fish and Game were interested in relation to potential impact on the trout fishing industry

· Many assumptions were yet to be verified with research before the sterile male catfish would be released into lakes, which could take a minimum of two to three years.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Investigating a Potential Biocontrol for Brown Bullhead Catfish.

von Dadelszen/Iti

CARRIED

6.10

Regional Wetlands Report

General Manager Integrated Catchments Chris Ingle and Environmental Scientist Shay Dean presented this item.

Cr von Dadelszen declared an interest.

In Response to Questions:

· The additional 1324 hectares of freshwater wetland was likely due to improvements in the resolution of aerial photography enabling more accurate measuring

· The loss of wetlands in the Whakatāne district across two sites was predominantly due to the management of contiguous plantation forestry and some conversion to plantation forestry.

Items for Staff Follow Up:

· Follow up on funding matters relating to Kopurererua Valley.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Regional Wetlands Report.

Clark/Nees

CARRIED

2020/21 Annual Work Plans: Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme and Rangitāiki Integrated Catchment Programme

Tabled Document 1 - Updated Rotorua Lake Trophic Level Index Summary: Objective ID A3628146

Integrated Catchments Manager Chris Ingle and Rotorua Catchments Manager Helen Creagh presented this item.

11.58 am – Cr White withdrew from the meeting.

In Response to Questions:

· There were opportunities that provided multiple benefits around biodiversity for which further analysis and options were forthcoming

· Staff believed they could provide wetland interventions that would benefit lake water quality.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, 2020/21 Annual Work Plans: Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme and Rangitāiki Integrated Catchment Programme.

Crosby/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

6.11

2020 Residents Survey Findings

Communications Manager Angela Foster presented this item.

Key Points – Members:

· Congratulated staff on the fact sheet that went out with Tauranga City Council rates and looked forward to separating out Regional Council rates to increase public awareness.

In Response to Questions:

· A number of factors may have influenced Ōpōtiki residents’ perception, including a ban on shellfish collection which was unrelated to Regional Council, general rates and a delay in harbour projects

· All data was aligned with the most recent population data available.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, 2020 Residents Survey Findings.

Rose/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

6.12

Customer Service Performance

Customer Contact Manager Rachael Burgess and Te Tuara Manager Annabel Chappell presented this item.

Key Points:

· Bringing transport calls on board to be managed internally doubled the call volumes.

In Response to Questions:

· Although passengers were registered individually by scanning the Bee Card, they were still encouraged to scan the QR code for government Covid tracing.

Resolved

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Customer Service Performance.

Rose/Nees

CARRIED

12.36 pm – The meeting adjourned.

1.00 pm – The meeting reconvened.

6.13

Presentation: University of Waikato Coastal Chair Annual Report

Presentation - UoW Coastal Chair Annual Report: Objective ID A3628300

University of Waikato Chair in Coastal Science Professor Chris Battershill presented this item.

Key Points - Members:

· Commended the valuable work and positive outcomes provided not just to the region but to the world

· Considered the definition of coastal sustainability was too restrictive

· More communication needed to take place around the success and potential of this work.

In Response to Questions:

· Agreed that the coastal sustainability definition should be expanded and there was opportunity to be more proactive in thinking about enhancement and increased resilience in the changing environment

· Selective breeding was being used for work on marine products such as seaweed, rather than genetic engineering

· Had submitted draft guidelines for comment concerning genomic research on taonga species

· There was a national programme led from the Bay of Plenty region which was looking at principles and ethics of genomic engineering and splicing

· For food or anything related to the environment selective breeding was a far preferable option to enhance the viability or resilience of organisms

· There were currently approximately 45 PhD students in the Bay of Plenty area.

7. Public Excluded Section

Resolved

Resolution to exclude the public

1 Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting as set out below:

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

Item No.	Subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Grounds under Section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	When the item can be released into the public
7.1	Public Excluded Monitoring and Operations Committee Minutes - 16 June 2020	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	As noted in the relevant Minutes.	To remain in public excluded.
7.2	University of Waikato Lakes Chair Report	Withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(a).	To remain in public excluded.
7.3	River Scheme Sustainability Update	Withholding the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material loss to members of the public.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(e).	To remain in public excluded.

Rose/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

2.18 pm – the meeting closed.

Confirmed

Cr Kevin Winters

Chairperson, Monitoring and Operations Committee



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Authoriser:	Sarah Omundsen, General Manager, Regulatory Services

Chairperson's Report

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on key matters of interest for Monitoring and Operations Committee members, including implementation of the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater and an update on the 2020/21 Water Shortage Event.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Chairperson's Report.

1. Purpose

This report provides an update on key matters of interest for Monitoring and Operations Committee members.

2. Matters of Interest

2.1 National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NESF) and S360 Regulations - Update

The NESF and S360 Regulations came into force on the 3rd September 2020. Our approach following the enactment of the NESF has been to:

• Carefully work through the new provisions to understand exactly what they mean for Councils functions, powers and duties;

• Contribute to the development of guidance material through Regional Sector working groups regarding how the provisions are to be interpreted and managed;

• Where necessary develop Bay of Plenty specific guidance material that takes into account how the new provisions mesh with our existing Regional Natural Resource Plan rules;

• Ensure our existing systems are fit for purpose to receive and store information required by the legislation, assess it for compliance and be prepared to report to Central Government as necessary;

• Collaborate closely with other statutory agencies in the Regional Sector to ensure we gather any learnings and take opportunities to share information and solutions;

• Engage with key Rural Sector organisations to work on a common understanding of issues and to ensure that our communications are consistent as far as possible.

Some requirements of the NESF and S360 requirements have immediate effect while others are phased in over the next 5 years. There is also a very substantial body of work in policy and planning which will be closely integrated with our regulatory operations.

The provisions for Natural Wetland Protection, Fish Passage and some provisions for Feedlots, and Stock Exclusion (for new areas of farm land) are already live.

While the consents staff have experienced an initial surge of queries just before the legislation became law, these have tailed off in recent weeks. Most of the consent workload arises from new applications that are captured by the new rules to some extent, such as the wetland provisions.

Our approach remains:

a) Provision of advice and support in terms of understanding the new requirements on request from the community;

b) Proactively advise the community that the new provisions are in force and where they can get help to answer any questions;

c) Carefully assess any new consent applications that are lodged to see if they are impacted by the new provisions.

The phasing of provisions relating to Stock Holding Areas, Intensive Winter Grazing of Fodder Crops, Agricultural Intensification and Synthetic Nitrogen Application from mid-2021 gives Council more time to prepare for the workload the new requirements will entail. S360 Regulations regarding the Measurement of Water Takes and Stock Exclusion from waterways are phased in commencing from 2022 and 2023 respectively.

Staff continue to be actively involved in the development of Freshwater Farm Plans (FWFP’s) at an inter-regional and national level. A well developed and implemented FWFP will provide an important tool for farmers to aggregate all of the new legislative requirements for their farming operations into one document that could be certified and audited. However, FWFP’s have been delayed awaiting the development of systems and advisory materials necessary for their implementation, which we are supporting.

Successful Farm Plans that are being proactively developed and implanted in the Rerewhakaaitu Catchment have been compared to the likely provisions of the NESF. Staff believe that the existing plans will cover most of the new requirements but will require some “tweaking” to cover off on the very specific requirements of the NESF and S360 provisions (such as set back distances and reporting requirements).

2.2 Water Shortage Event Management 2020/21

The month of November delivered significant rainfall totals, which in most parts of the region were 2 to 3 times November normals. This rainfall has provided some immediate relief to what was developing pressure on stream flows and soil moisture levels as we moved into summer. It should be noted that long term rainfall totals are still in significant deficit and any future dry periods will likely see pressure re-develop quite rapidly. Therefore, work is continuing in preparation for possible water restrictions being issued.

The confirmed La Nina conditions are likely to bring a greater chance of periodic rainfall, including ex-tropical cyclones, for the Bay of Plenty over latter parts of the summer months. However, warm conditions will see water demand maintained. MetService forecasts are for a drier than normal December.

Over the last two months, Council staff have met and presented to kiwifruit focussed workshops, dairy stakeholders and local authority staff, raising awareness of potential water restrictions. In addition, several media releases were issued, an e-Panui circulated to iwi, and an independent article published (see Coast and Country www.coastandcountrynews.co.nz/news/5920-talking-smart-water-use-early-on).

All of this helps socialise the low flow conditions and potential restrictions. Overall water shortage awareness is certainly much higher than during the 2019/20 event earlier this year.

Refer to the Dry Weather Water Management project page for more information and latest Situation Reports: https://www.boprc.govt.nz/our-projects/dry-weather-water-management

2.3 Evaluating dams and associated water takes: case study

A desktop exercise to locate dams in rural areas of the Western Bay District was undertaken using aerial photography by the summer students last year. Of the 323 dams identified, 40 have resource consent for the structure and 26 to take water. It is unclear how many of the remainder comply with Permitted Activity provisions.

Subject to Permitted Activity requirements, the Regional Natural Resources Plan does not require registration for some small dams built before 2004. No dams built post 2004 have been registered as a Permitted Activity with Council. Planning staff have concern about the effects of dams on streams and ephemeral watercourses in the region on stream functioning and water accounting.

Commencing in December, staff will be ground truthing a small catchment near Katikati assessing waterways for dams and any associated water takes. The project aims to inform NPSFM policy development, in particular the effect of dams on fish passage, water accounting and managing low flow conditions. It will also be used to gauge the level of compliance against existing Regional Plan rules.

Information from the survey will be captured using a GIS based tool. If found, any unauthorised water takes will be addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. However, results from the dam assessments will likely be considered more holistically with input from across Council and utilising external advice where required.

Staff have previously identified both dams and water takes as being a priority focus area for the Permitted Activity staff resources proposed through the next LTP.

2.4 Barcam at the Huntress Creek Conservation Area

The Harbourmaster received a number of requests last year to install a bar camera around the Huntress Creek Conservation Area, given the conditions of the Ōpōtiki bar and the increasing number of recreational vessels crossing it. He worked closely with local community and iwi representatives to ensure the right people were involved, with the right permissions in place. He also sought planning support to ensure the work was consistent with district and regional rules (in particular the Coastal Plan).

Unfortunately it was assumed a Department of Conservation (DOC) concession wasn’t required for a navigational aid; DOC issued a cease works once the preliminary concrete pad had been installed and ordered the structure be removed or a permit be applied for.

The issue was reported in the Ōpōtiki Times on 19 November.

Given how contentious the installation has been, and the fact that new cameras will be installed through the Ōpōtiki Harbour project shortly, the Harbourmaster advised DOC that we will now remove the structure following their requirements, rather than seek a concession. Staff have been working through the options.

The cost of installation and (planned) subsequent removal of the concrete base for the bar camera will total $7,000. The cost of the bar camera itself (camera, radios, regulator, mounts, solar panels etc) totalled $15,000 and will be used in another location.

2.5 Tauranga Moana OSET project update

The Tauranga Moana OSET Project was set up initially as an information-gathering exercise to identify wastewater issues for Marae in Tauranga Moana, and identify opportunities to address these issues. This project captured Marae located in both Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty District.

As previously reported to the Monitoring and Operations committee, Tauranga City Council has resolved to connect all remaining Tauranga City Marae to reticulation, and infrastructure planning and consultation is well underway.

Significant progress has also been made in the Western Bay of Plenty District, particularly as Western Bay of Plenty District Council have secured Central Government funding for a number of projects, including a specific project to address Marae wastewater infrastructure deficits across the entire Western Bay District (ie. not just Tauranga Moana). This project includes implementation, and funding is contingent on infrastructure being installed by March 2022.

Western Bay of Plenty District Council intend to provide reticulation for a number of Marae where connection is viable, and have engaged a project manager to progress this. For those which reticulation is not a practicable option, they have engaged the Marae OSET project team (Trisha Simonsen and Frances Tinakore-Curtis) to continue working with marae and design suitable OSET systems, with installation to follow where appropriate.

Regional Council has committed to processing the resource applications for the OSET systems free of charge, and is continuing to work closely with key staff from the Western Bay of Plenty District Council to assist in the project going forward.

2.6 2020 Funding Opportunities

2.6.1 Provincial Growth Fund

There are now 67 Provincial Growth Fund projects in the Bay of Plenty, with a total value of $444m. 38 of these projects are already underway. Attachment 1 provides a high level summary of where the projects are, level of funding they received and progress to date.

2.6.2 Crown Infrastructure Funded Projects and Jobs for Nature

The Council has now successfully concluded contractual negotiations with the Ministry for the Environment, Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

We have a signed contract for the funding from MfE jobs for nature (J4N) quick-start project, a $6M 2-year project 50% co-funded by MfE. The Council’s 50% uses existing Coastal and Rotorua Catchments budgets and is delivered via landowner Environmental Programmes using Council’s grants funding policy.

The Wilding Pine and Wallabies programmes also now have signed agreements and the contract work is now being procured according to the procurement plans. Reporting on the results of this work will follow in due course.

The MBIE Infrastructure Partners projects are also now finalised, worth $23M in terms of the Crown’s funding share (75% of total), with Council funding it’s 25% from the relevant river scheme.

The Kia Kaha project has now concluded and a report to council will be prepared in the new year, detailing the work completed as part of this project, and the social procurement learnings.

Staff are also now involved with the Department of Conservation, in forming J4N sub-regional alliances, together with Iwi participants. To date, two groups have formed, based on the Okurei and Mauao constituency areas.

2.7 Resource Consents update

· We have received 380 resource consent applications so far this financial year. 16 were returned, four have been withdrawn, 30 are for dairy effluent discharges and 75 are for bore installation. This compares to 311 resource consent applications received in the same period last year.

· Two discounts (1%) have been issued from 174 decisions made on new applications received within the financial year. Overall, discounts have been issued on two of 272 decisions made.

· 31 (11%) of the 272 decisions made were processed by consultants. All the rest were processed internally.

· 44 (83%) of 53 customers responding were either satisfied (21) or very satisfied (23) with the service provided.

· A breakdown of the type of consents granted so far this year is shown below:

· NZ Avocado, NZKGI, and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council have collaborated to streamline a process to remove seasonal restrictions from water take consents and provide desired flexibility for growers. Growers would have been interested in this if they have a consent to take water that has irrigation and/or frost seasons specified in consent conditions and are looking for more flexibility. We understand that the deposit fee required to lodge an application to vary consent conditions is a barrier to growers so have agreed to waive the deposit fee for growers who apply for a variation as a group. Nine consent holders registered seeking these changes. One consent holder required a variation to consent (to take more water) and changes are being worked through with the remaining eight. Some amendments have now been made to resource consents without any cost to consent holders – one of the participants commented, “Man, that was the easiest consent thing I have ever done! Thanks very much - excellent service”.

· A range of new performance measures have been tracked this year. As an example, the percentage of applications processed within 40 working days provides a measure of the total time taken to process applications without considering ‘clock stops’ for things like further information requests. So far this year 64% of applications have been processed within 40 working days, compared to 55% for the same period last year.

2.8 Regulatory Compliance update

2.8.1 Pollution hotline and complaint response

· 1404 service requests have been received between 1 July and 30 November 2020 (see graph below), which is 1% lower than this time last year. 33% of these calls were received after hours, up from the 28% in the first quarter.

· 66% of service requests were related to air quality – odour (454), smoke (310), agrichemical (65) and dust (78). This was up from 60% in the first quarter.

· 377 (27%) calls were substantiated, and of these 98% of customers surveyed were satisfied with the customer service they received.

· 71% of calls received were actioned on the day of receipt. 97% of calls were actioned within 3 working days.

2.8.2 Compliance Monitoring:

· From 1 July - 30 November, we have completed 2133 compliance inspections, and received and reviewed 5413 performance monitoring returns from consent holders.

· Similar to the update provided in the September Chair’s Report, compliance levels are slightly lower than last year for site inspections (79% compared to 84% in 2019/20), while largely consistent for performance monitoring/compliance returns (72% compared to 71% in 2019/20). However, it is important to note that 78% is still within the expected range (75-80%), when considered alongside previous years and compliance levels observed in other regions. The majority of non-compliances observed are considered to be low risk with only 1.26% considered to be significantly non-compliant.

· Staff have completed targeted projects for consent monitoring relating to OSET discharges (170 inspections), Water takes (139 inspections), Tauranga Geothermals (42 inspections) and Rotorua Geothermals (83 inspections). The Dairy Effluent Discharge monitoring project is currently underway and nearing completion, with a total of 292 farms to be inspected.

2.8.3 Enforcement

To date, regional council has issued 45 abatement notices and 15 infringement notices in relation to breaches of Regional Plan rules and/or Resource Consent conditions.

We have the received the following decisions from the court in relation to 4 prosecutions:

· BOPRC v. Ziwi Ltd – discharge to air (offensive and objectionable odour): Ziwi were convicted and fined $66,000

· BOPRC v. Kaimai Dairy Farms Ltd – discharge to land where it may enter water (dairy effluent): Kaimai Dairy Farm was convicted and fined $34,650

· BOPRC v. Vercoe & Vercoe Contracting – discharge to land where it may enter water (earthworks): The defendants were convicted and charged a combined total of $16,800

· BOPRC v. Kevin Davies – discharge to air (burning of demolition waste): Kevin Davies was convicted and fined $14,000 ($5000 of which was paid as reparations to impacted victims)

Regional Council currently has a further 11 cases before the courts.

2.9 Data Services update

2.9.1 Wherurere Lands Trust – weather station

Regional Council have recently provided a grant to Wherurere Lands Trust in order to provide for the continuation of monitoring in their rohe following a fixed term monitoring project coming to an end. The funded 2 year monitoring project was part of the Deep South National Challenge that gathered information on rainfall, stream flow and soil moisture to support sustainable land and water management decisions.

The Trust were keen to continue gathering data to assist local Māori landowners to manage the sustainable use of water and land management activities. The funding, which will allow for the purchase of the equipment from NIWA, requires the Trust to commit to ongoing maintenance and monitoring for a limited 6 year term over which time it must provide Council access to the data.

The funding provided supports the development of capability and capacity of tangata whenua to assess the value of data for short and in-perpetuity use, while also presenting opportunity to understand the true cost and effort required to establish, maintain and deliver on monitoring programmes.

Knowledge developed will enable the trust to undertake a thorough cost benefit analysis for continued monitoring of this project at the end of its six year term, or any other future monitoring project they wish to undertake. The wider community will also receive benefit through the publication of some of the collected data (e.g. rainfall), to our Environmental Data Portal.

2.9.2 Snapshot of activities

Activity in the Data Services team has recently been focussed on systems and quality development in order to meet the increasing requirements for delivery of data of a known quality in a shorter timeframe.

National Environmental Monitoring Standards (NEMS) for rating curves, which are the models that turn measured river water level into river flow, and water quality measurement are both nearing full implementation. NEMS ensure data is collected against national best practice, is of a common standard allowing use at both a regional and national scale and provides confidence in what we deliver.

Timeframes on data delivery (Figure 1) and laboratory analyses (Figure 2) continue to move towards target levels as improvement and automation of processes occur.

Figure 1 Data delivery KPI performance

Figure 2 Laboratory delivery KPI

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Provincial Growth Fund BOP Dashboard August 2020 ⇩



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Reece Irving, Senior Regulatory Project Officer
Report Authoriser:	Sarah Omundsen, General Manager, Regulatory Services
Purpose:	To update committee members on issues and actions in the Mount Maunganui Industrial Airshed.

Mount Maunganui Industrial Area Update

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on activities undertaken to improve air quality in the Mount Maunganui Industrial Area and Airshed. The report covers the period from mid-September until late-November 2020.

One breach of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) was recorded at the Rail Yard South monitoring site on 7 October. This was the first PM10 breach in seven months. Investigation pointed to multiple activities down-wind likely contributing to the exceedance, which was slightly above maximum Standard values.

Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Tauranga City Councils both moved to act on the 19 June recommendation of the Tauranga Moana Advisory Group to explore what a managed retreat of polluting industries from the air shed might look like. Consultants have been appointed to investigate options, and this work has commenced.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Mount Maunganui Industrial Area Update.

1. Introduction

This update continues the regular reporting on activities and actions undertaken to mitigate the impacts of industrial discharges to air in the Mount Maunganui industrial area. Air quality in the area has been perceived as degrading over a period of time as Port and industrial activity and vehicle movements have increased significantly in recent years. Regional Council has an extensive work programme underway to improve air quality in this area.

Following the expansion of Regional Council’s air quality monitoring capability in late 2018, several exceedances of environmental guidelines and the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ) were detected. Investigations of these exceedances have shown a single pollution source is seldom the cause and the cumulative effect of emissions from multiple sources is generally responsible.

After seven months without any breaches of National Environmental Standards within the air-shed, there was one breach of the 50mg/m3 PM10 24 hour average limited detected at the Rail Yard South monitoring site in October.

1.1 Legislative Framework

The Mount Maunganui Airshed was gazetted as a polluted airshed under the NESAQ Regulations 2004, coming into effect in November 2019. The gazetting was based on breaches of the limits for fine particulate matter, PM10. As per the regulations, five continuous years with no NES PM10 breaches must be recorded for the polluted status to be reviewed.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We develop and implement regional plans and policy to protect our natural environment.
Safe and Resilient Communities	We work with our partners to develop plans and policies, and we lead and enable our communities to respond and recover from an emergency.
A Vibrant Region	We work with and connect the right people to create a prosperous region and economy.
The Way We Work	We look to partnerships for best outcomes.

Improving air quality in the Mount Maunganui Industrial Area requires staff from teams across the organisation to work closely with the community, other agencies and industry.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

¨ Environmental

Medium - Positive

¨ Cultural

High - Positive

¨ Social

High - Positive

¨ Economic

Medium - Negative

Regional Council has a goal to improve the air quality within the Mount Maunganui airshed and ensure contaminants discharged to air are below the NESAQ limits at all times. Achieving this goal will have positive environmental, cultural and social affects for the Mount Maunganui area. However, significant investment from industry will be required which is likely to have short term economic impacts. Since the gazetting of the airshed, some industry have advised staff that they may delay or reconsider proposals to invest in plant or infrastructure due to uncertainty in their future in this location.

2. Updates

2.1 Monitoring and exceedances

One breach of the NES PM10 limits was recorded at the Rail Yard South monitoring site on 7 October 2020. This was the first breach detected since March 2020. Investigation of likely sources showed multiple down-wind, mostly port based activities are likely to have released the dust that was detected in several spikes during the day, causing a minor exceedance of the National Environmental Standards limits.

A list of exceedances since the airshed was gazetted is included in Attachment 1.

In response to public concerns about exposure by sports-people and spectators at the Blake Park sporting facilities, a dust (Total Suspended Particulate – TSP) monitoring station has been established in the south west boundary of Blake Park. The equipment installed here gives a reading of total dust exposure and does not feed into the councils National Environmental Standards (NES) reporting. It allows council to alert users of Blake Park’s facilities if they are being exposed to levels of dust that could impact on human health.

2.2 Investigating a managed retreat of industry

Following the recommendation to the 19 June 2020 Tauranga Moana Advisory Group, consultants have been commissioned to undertake a study into what a managed retreat of polluting industry from the Mount Maunganui Industrial Area might look like. They have met with the Whareroa community, and this committee will be kept updated as the work progresses.

2.3 Mount Industrial Environment Network meeting

A meeting of the Mount Industrial Environment Network was held on Wednesday 2 December, attended by 40 representatives of local business and industry. The topics covered in the meeting were:

· Port of Tauranga’s investigations into dust, and mitigation measures underway

· An update on the current air-quality situation and monitoring findings

· An overview of how an investigation into an air quality breach is undertaken

· Question and answer session.

Notes from the meeting are included in Attachment 2.

2.4 Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party

The first meeting of the Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party was held on Monday 7 December. The Working Party has been established to bring together agencies, communities and industry to seek a common understanding of the issues and ensure everybody knows what is being done to improve air quality in the Mount Maunganui Airshed.

The notes from the meeting are included at Attachment 3.

2.5 Communications and Media

Media and social media commentary regarding the Mount Maunganui Industrial area has fluctuated over the past three months but still highlights persistent air quality concerns.

September was a quieter period of media interest, with the primary discussion being around Ziwi Pet foods who were scheduled to appear before the courts.

In early October there was renewed discussions around Whareroa Marae and central government ministerial visits. After several approaches to the Associate Minister for the Environment, which coincided with heightened political commentary leading into the October elections Minister Nanaia Mahuta visited the Marae.

The Minister (accompanied by several Labour MPs), acknowledged the air pollution concerns put forward by the Whareroa community, explaining that there is no quick fix to the problems caused by the proximity of the industrial and residential areas.

In November there has been a significant increase in media and community interest in methyl bromide use at the Port of Tauranga. This aligned with Regional Council’s proactive call for submissions, above the standard public notification process, on the Genera resource consent application. The Bay of Plenty Times and TVNZ’s Breakfast Show both covered the methyl bromide opposition in detail. There were also protests at Ballance Agri-nutrient locations across NZ in regard to the source of raw materials overseas, with the Mount Maunganui protesters tying in the message around air quality concerns.

2.6 Policy Matters

A report to discuss provisions for the proposed Mount Maunganui Airshed plan change was delivered to a Strategy & Policy Committee Workshop on 29 September. For Plan Change 13, the bulk solid materials rule (AQ R22) and definition are still under appeal and were subject to an Environment Court hearing in October 2020. The Court’s decision has not yet been notified and so this matter is still confidential. However, all of the remaining provisions from Plan Change 13 are beyond appeal and must be treated as operative.

2.7 Consents

There are currently nine businesses or activities that have applied for new consents, or are undergoing reviews of existing consents for discharge to air, land or water, within the Mount Industrial air-shed.

Lawter Ltd: The application has been accepted. An independent consultant has undertaken an assessment of the effects of the activity as well an assessment of the cumulative effects of discharges from Ballance, Lawter and Waste Management. The information has been circulated to Lawter for their review. This review is still underway. The next step will be for Council staff to meet with Lawter to discuss how they will implement reductions in sulphur dioxide discharges as required. Lawter have requested public notification of their application.

HR Cement: The application has been accepted as complete under sec.88 of the Resource Management Act (RMA). The company are currently consulting with relevant iwi authorities. The application is a high quality example of what other businesses should be doing in regard to air discharges within the air shed.

Higgins: The application has been accepted as complete and an independent technical review completed. This review highlighted several things that are required from Higgins, including undertaking a new stack test, a summary of the stack testing undertaken to date and to undertake dispersion modelling using the stack emissions testing results. By undertaking more stack testing Regional Council will get a better understanding of actual use to inform new consent limits. Higgins is requesting a 10 year term even though they propose to move out of the airshed in the short term. Higgins is still working on the additional information requested.

Ziwi: The application has been accepted as complete with an independent consultant engaged to undertake a technical review. The technical review has raised a number of questions and further information has been sought from Ziwi which is due in December 2020. Ziwi have requested a 20 year term for their consent, as well as public notification. Once the additional information requested has been received and reviewed, the application will be publically notified. We anticipate that notification will occur in February 2021.

Port Operators (Matariki, Timberlands & TPT): Three consents are all being processed together. They are the dust discharge applications from the log yards at the Port. The applications were lodged in November 2019 and we asked for further information to quantify the volume of dust anticipated to be discharged and some modelling to demonstrate how far that might travel (so that an assessment of potentially affected parties could be made). The applicants are still working to provide the information requested.

Genera: Genera has applied to re-consent their fumigation activities (RM19-0663). That consent was lodged in October 2019 and further information was requested in December. That information is being returned in parts, with the modelling being provided mid-August. The application was publicly notified in October and the submission period closed Monday 16 November 2020. Besides newspapers and Council’s website, the application was also placed on Council’s Facebook page, which has been very effective as a form of notification to the general public. At the time of writing this feedback, 338 submissions had been received, mostly in opposition, with a large number indicating that they wish to be heard at a hearing. The hearing will be held early in the New Year.

The ‘Clear the Air’ community group has launched a petition against Regional Council granting consent.

There is an additional resource consent application pending by Genera for fumigation throughout the Bay of Plenty. A decision about whether to publicly notify this region-wide consent has yet to be made.

Timaru Oil: The proposed tank farm application has been jointly notified with TCC on a limited basis to the iwi and the Whareroa Marae. Four submissions in opposition have been received and a joint hearing was held on Wednesday 2 December at the Trust Power Bay Park Centre.

Allied Asphalt: A consent has been lodged and further information has been requested. A meeting was held with Allied Asphalt, in which they indicated that they intend to build a new plant and remove the current plant. The new plant will include best practice technology, which will significantly reduce their emissions. Conceptual information on the proposed new plant and timing thereof will form part of the additional information to be supplied to Council.

Waste Management: A meeting was held with Waste Management on 16 July 2020 to get an update on their application before progressing it to make sure there haven’t been any major changes. The applicant has provided information on their production hours and new odour mitigations they have installed. An independent technical review has been undertaken and additional stack testing has been requested.

2.8 Methyl Bromide update

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) methyl bromide requirements

Following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing for the modified reassessment of methyl bromide, there is yet to be a decision (as reported at 25 November 2020), around the main issues of the buffer distances, controls and the timeframe for the introduction of recapture. The Decision Making Committee (DMC) considered that there were aspects regarding the dispersion of methyl bromide such that it required additional information to inform its deliberations. As a result, further air dispersion modelling has been commissioned. The buffer distances proposed by the applicant were far less than those derived from the independent modelling, including that commissioned by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Council).

STIMBR (Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction) request for another extension to the recapture requirement

The original methyl bromide decision in 2010 required that all methyl bromide fumigation be subject to recapture from October 2020. STIMBR successfully applied for a six month extension to this date while the latest reassessment was being considered. A further six months was applied for on the basis that the “letters of credit used to secure payment from Indian importers, typically on 90 to 180 day payment terms.

“In summary, exporters faced a risk of non-payment for logs exported prior to the recapture deadline, if payment would fall due after the recapture deadline; and under typical credit terms this risk would arise 6 months (180 days) prior to the deadline, and would increase as the deadline approached.” On 11 November this additional extension was granted by the EPA however this extension is subordinate to the decision reached in the substantive reassessment.

Genera enforcement action

Council recently received a letter from Genera’s lawyer asking to us to withdraw recent infringement notices related to an exceedance five times the allowable limit at the boundary. The basis of the request was that there may have been other confounding influences affecting the meter reading.

Council did not withdraw these notices and they were subsequently paid.

2.9 Regulatory Compliance

2.9.1 Pollution Hotline calls received and responded to

During the reporting period 188 calls were received by the Pollution Hotline relating to events within the Mount Industrial airshed. Of these, 176 related to air quality, with 148 of the total relating to odour discharges which remains the main cause of calls to the Pollution Hotline. Almost all odour complaints relate to the manufacturing processes at Ziwi Pet foods.

Pollution Hotline Complaint Categories 15 August to 17 November 2020
Category	# calls	% calls
Coastal	3	1.6
Water and Land	9	4.8
Air	176	93.6
Total	188	100

Pollution Hotline Complaint Sub-Categories 15 August to 17 November 2020 – Mount Industrial Area
Sub-Category	# calls	% calls
Water & Land - Discharges to Water	1	0.5
Air - Unknown	2	1.1
Air - Smoke	3	1.6
Coastal - Discharges	3	1.6
Air - Industrial	8	4.3
Water & Land - Unknown	8	4.3
Air - Dust	15	8.0
Air - Odour	148	78.7
Total	188	100.0

2.9.2 Industry updates

Balance Agri-nutrients plant upgrade and investment

In response to a number of complaints received via the Pollution Hotline, a site visit was undertaken at the Ballance plant on 5th October 2020 and as a result, works are commencing to install four fast acting doors with interlocks on the northern side of the fertiliser load out bays in an effort to reduce fugitive dust crossing the boundary into Taiaho Place. This means both entry and exit doors will be shut during loading and trucks will not be allowed to enter or exit the load out bay without one of the doors being closed.

Ballance have started a $1.8M project for enclosing of site weighbridges, installing rapid action roller doors, and installing air extraction and filtering to reduce dust emissions from the site. This work will be completed by winter 2021.

In 2019, three PM₁₀ monitors were installed on the Ballance site. Two of these are stationed on site, one on the southern boundary and one near the northern boundary. The third monitor is located outside the boundary, near Whareroa marae. Over the last 12 months, the monitors have provided invaluable data to enable Ballance to identify key areas for improvement, reviewing and updating site procedures to further assist in dust reduction.

In July, while undertaking annual maintenance on the mills and acidulation plant, additional work to both increase plant efficiency and improve dust capture were completed. This work was in part based on the findings of PM10 monitoring data.

Earlier this year Ballance purchased six high-powered mobile air extractor units for dust extraction and vacuum cleaning on site. The business is currently running a trial on their No.2 intake, operating two air extractor units during raw material deliveries to reduce dust emissions. Additional dust reduction trials are also planned around site.

Port of Tauranga

There are a number of issues the Port of Tauranga are working through at the moment:

(a) Exhaust Gas Cleaning System (scrubber)

Lowering exhaust emissions is now a priority following New Zealand’s adoption of MARPOL Annex IV, Marine Pollution Vessel emissions reduction. Vessels are now using low emission fuels or scrubbers to reduce their air emissions while at port. The current use of open loop scrubbers with no secondary treatment or the ability to hold scrubber waste has been identified as an ongoing issue. Conversations with MFE and harbourmasters on how to best prevent vessels discharging scrubber waste have begun. The figure below shows the difference between open-loop and closed-loop scrubbers.

(b) Discharge of Sewage from vessels within Tauranga harbour:

Staff are working with Maritime NZ (MNZ) to identify vessels that operate within the Tauranga harbour and have toilets on-board with no holding tanks. The MNZ audit of vessels will be upgraded to determine whether vessels with an on-board toilet have the ability to hold waste and dispose of it appropriately. This has extended to a joint venture with the BoPRC maritime team to undertake a survey of all live aboard vessels within the Tauranga harbour that also do not have the ability to hold waste on-board.

(c) Air Quality Upgrades and improvements:

Kiwi Rail has replaced the unsealed railway corridor at the northern end of their site with finer material and compacted it to reduce the potential of dust being generated. Observations shows a marked improvement in the reduction of dust being generated by vehicular movement within this area.

ISO Limited’s new cranes are now operational at Berth 11. The environmental benefits of these cranes will result in less vehicle movements at the berth frontage reducing the risk of dust and sediment discharge.

Monitoring of the discharge of dry bulk material will be a focus this year with more responsibility being placed on product owners to take ownership throughout the entire transit and storage of their product. A product being loaded onto a vessel was stopped recently because they were unable to contain the dust within their work area, as illustrated in the photographs below.

Traffic management around the Port has also seen an improvement with roadways being clearly defined and speed through log areas being monitored. A change to the roadway to Berth’s 9 and 10 has been implemented to reduce dust in this area. This change provides two benefits: log rows act as wind fences and the diversion of traffic reduces dust being generated.

(d) Stormwater Quality:

There has been a requirement for some businesses within the Mount area to obtain stormwater discharge consent or seek variation to their existing consent to improve compliance. In instances where sample returns exceed trigger limits the consent holder is required to undertake an investigation in the likely cause of the exceedance, implement improvements and resample. Only a small number (2 – 3) fail to meet consent limits after this process, this has resulted in variations being approved and in one case the business has chosen to enclose their entire site.

3. Considerations

3.1 Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are not sensitive to the effects of climate change. Staff have also considered the effect of the initiative on greenhouse gas emissions and recommend that there will be no effect.

3.2 Implications for Māori

Ngāi Tukairangi me Ngāti Kuku ki Whareroa are the Ngāi Te Rangi hapū affiliated with Whareroa Marae and with whom Regional Council staff have been endeavouring to foster closer relationships to ensure council actions will have direct and positive impacts on the Taiaho Place and papa kainga communities. Staff have also been working hard to ensure the communities are connected with agencies such as Ministry for the Environment and Toi te Ora.

The development of the Air Quality Working Party will provide another key platform for engagement with iwi and hapū and for their concerns to be heard around a wider table.

3.3 Community Engagement

INVOLVE

Whakaura

To work directly with affected communities throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are consistently understood and fully considered in Council’s decision making.

3.4 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

4. Next Steps

Staff will continue to update this Committee on all work underway to improve air quality in the Mount Maunganui Industrial Area. The Associate Minister for the Environment has also requested six monthly updates from the Regional Council on this work, two of which were provided in 2020, and this current report will be sent to her as part of the next update in early 2021.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - PM10 exceedances in the Mount Maunganui Airshed ⇩

Attachment 2 - Mount Industrial Environment Network Meeting 2 December 2020 NOTES ⇩

Attachment 3 - Mount Maunganui Air Quality Working Party_Meeting Notes_7 December 2020 ⇩



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Marion Henton, Senior Regulatory Project Officer
Report Authoriser:	Sarah Omundsen, General Manager, Regulatory Services
Purpose:	To consider an initiative to extend the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include new subdivisions that could contribute particulate matter into the Airshed and impact air quality.

Rotorua Airshed Boundary Extension

Executive Summary

It has come to the attention of the Rotorua Air Quality Working Party (“the Working Party”) that Rotorua Lakes Council is receiving solid fuel burner building consent applications for new dwellings being built in a Pukehangi subdivision. This subdivision sits just outside the Rotorua Airshed (“the Airshed”). Due to the subdivision’s location smoke emitted from dwellings solid fuel burners will flow into the Airshed and impact its air quality.

There has been gradual air quality improvement in the Airshed but it is continually at risk of breaching the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ). In its current state the Airshed is likely to breach the NESAQ if additional particulate matter (PM) flows into the Airshed across the existing boundary from new subdivisions.

The Working Party is not a decision-making body, but its Terms of Reference include as one of its functions: to take opportunities as a group to seek out and encourage any alternatives, options and initiatives that will further the reduction of PM₁₀ discharges in the Rotorua Airshed.

The Working Party requests that this Committee:

· Consider its initiative to: extend the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include any subdivision that could contribute additional PM into the Airshed. This would protect air quality gains to date and stop new sources of PM from being introduced; and

· Recommend to the Strategy and Policy Committee that the Rotorua Airshed boundary be extended to include any subdivision that could contribute additional PM into the Rotorua Airshed.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Rotorua Airshed Boundary Extension;

2 Recommends to the Strategy and Policy Committee that the Rotorua Airshed boundary is extended to include any subdivisions that could contribute additional particulate matter into the Rotorua Airshed.

1. Introduction

Regional councils monitor air quality in areas (airsheds) where air quality has or could breach the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (NESAQ).

The Rotorua Airshed was gazetted in 2005. The Airshed breached the NESAQ every year until 2020. The main source of particulate matter is smoke from winter fires.

Figure 1: Existing Rotorua Airshed Boundary

Since 2010 the Regional Council and Rotorua Lakes Council have worked collectively to improve Rotorua’s air quality with a combination of solid fuel burner regulations and burner replacement funding assistance. This carrot and stick approach has led to a steady reduction in the number of annual exceedances.

In response to Rotorua’s population growth Rotorua Lakes Council has approved new housing subdivisions. Some of their new subdivisions will have a direct (or potential) impact on the air quality in the Airshed if the new dwellings are able to install solid fuel burners for heating.

A map showing the new adjacent subdivisions is included at Attachment 1.

1.1 Legislative Framework

Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Air Quality) Regulations 2004.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment

We manage our natural resources effectively through regulation, education and action.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

High - Positive

þ Cultural

Low - Positive

þ Social

High - Positive

þ Economic

Low - Positive

Solid fuel burner regulations control air pollution within the Rotorua Airshed. Improved air quality in the Airshed:

(1) Improves the environment;

(2) Improves the air the community breathes which in turn improves their health (social well-being);

(3) Is important to Māori as air is a taonga;

(4) Improves the economy due to decreased medical costs and lost productivity when people are unable to work.

2. Comments

2.1 Rotorua Air Quality Working Party

On 30 November 2020 members of the Rotorua Air Quality Working Party met. Members include Regional Council and Rotorua Lakes Council councillors, the Medical Officer of Health, and Kainga Ora. The agencies work collectively to find ways to improve Rotorua’s air quality.

2.1.1 Concerns raised regarding new subdivisions sitting outside the Airshed

During the meeting a member raised concern that Rotorua Lakes Council is receiving solid fuel burner building consent applications for a new Pukehangi subdivision.

This particular subdivision sits outside the Rotorua Airshed, but given its location, when solid fuel burners are installed in the new dwellings, their smoke will flow into the Airshed and impact its air quality.

There has been gradual air quality improvement in the Airshed but it is continually at risk of breaching the NESAQ. In its current state the Airshed is likely to exceed the NESAQ if additional particulate matter (PM) flows into the Airshed across the existing boundary from new subdivisions.

New subdivisions that sit outside the Airshed are not subject to existing Airshed solid fuel burner regulations so Rotorua Lakes Council cannot legally decline applications to install new solid fuel burners in these properties.

3. Considerations

3.1 Risks and Mitigations

3.1.1 Risks

Rotorua Airshed solid fuel burner regulations cannot be applied to properties outside the Airshed. This means that solid fuel burners can be installed as dwellings are built.

The proximity of some Rotorua Lakes Council’s subdivisions (currently outside the Airshed) pose a problem for the Airshed as smoke from new solid fuel burners will potentially flow into the Airshed and:

· Increase the level/concentration of particulate matter

· Increase the number of particulate matter exceedances.

3.1.2 Mitigations

Gradual air quality improvement has been made in the Rotorua Airshed through staged solid fuel burner regulations, however, the Airshed remains vulnerable to particulate matter exceedances.

The Working Party advise extending the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include Rotorua Lakes Council’s subdivisions that could contribute particulate matter into the Airshed. This would:

· Protect air quality improvements made to date; and

· Mitigate against new sources of particulate matter flowing into the Airshed.

3.2 Climate Change

No matter how it burns, a wood fire produces carbon dioxide. From the moment a tree is felled until a mature tree grows to take its place, the carbon released from the fire represents an addition of warming pollution to the atmosphere. There is a lag time for that carbon to be absorbed again by the growth of new trees. It is generally accepted that wood smoke has minimal impact on climate change.

3.3 Implications for Māori

Poor air quality is linked to poor health, particularly respiratory diseases such as asthma. Improved air quality will reduce the number of asthma hospitalisations in the community, of which, according to the Ministry of Health in a 2018 report, Māori aged 5-34 years were almost twice as likely as non-Māori (in the same age group) to have been hospitalised for asthma.

3.4 Community Engagement

The Working Party is asking that consideration be given to their initiative/option to extend the Airshed boundary. No community engagement is required for this action.

3.5 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

4. Next Steps

If this Committee wish to extend the Rotorua Airshed boundary to include any subdivision that could contribute additional particulate matter into the Rotorua Airshed then the matter needs to be referred to Council’s Strategy and Policy Committee.

The Strategy and Policy Committee are able to progress a gazettal process as follows:

1. Submit the revised airshed boundary map to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) for certification and registration.

2. Then submit the final report to the Minister for the Environment for his approval.

3. Once approval is obtained the new airshed boundary will be publicly notified in the NZ Gazette.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Rotorua Airshed and adjacent subdivision MAP ⇩



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Jackson Efford, Principal Advisor, Land and Water
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	This report updates the Committee on the Council’s Focus Catchment work programme to date.

Focus Catchments update

Executive Summary

The 11 Focus Catchments have been selected due to water quality issues present. This report updates Councillors on the work underway over the past 15 months: investigations, monitoring, action planning, facilitating partnerships, and on-the-ground action to achieve water quality outcomes.

In June 2019 Council approved incentivising landowners in these catchments with higher grant rates. This has led to more concerted action and increased buy-in. Recent Government funding opportunities have increased the scale and quality of works possible, further assisting landowner buy-in.

Traditional land management involved stock exclusion fencing and planting. Recent tools include detainment bunds and constructed treatment wetlands. Farm plans to achieve best practice, modelling nutrient management and facilitating Catchment Groups also feature strongly. Emphases is placed on scientific understanding of water quality issues (eg. faecal source tracking, eDNA and Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment techniques).

Community and industry buy-in to voluntary action with the likes of Catchment Groups who champion water quality issues in their local areas, will have the greatest positive impact; ahead of regulatory change required by the NPS-FM. There are a growing number of engaged landowner communities around the region.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Focus Catchments update .

1. Introduction

The Focus Catchments programme was developed in response to Council’s new KPI to improve swimmability in our rivers, in the Long Term Plan 2018-28, and to align the Coastal and Rotorua Catchments Teams’ work with the Essential Freshwater policy framework from the Ministry for the Environment (including the recently gazetted National Policy Statement for Freshwater management NPS-FM). The Focus Catchments programme was approved by the Regional Direction and Delivery Committee, along with approving the amended Environmental Grants Policy, on 25 June 2019.

Over the past two decades, Land Management Officers at the Bay of Plenty Regional Council have engaged with landowners at any location within the Region, to offer advice and co-funding grants. Staff prepare Environmental Programmes (EPs) agreements for activities such as riparian fencing and planting, biodiversity protection, pole planting, erosion control, pest management, land use and nutrient management. While many landowners have improved their property’s environmental performance through the implementation of these EPs, the effectiveness of this investment at a catchment-scale is unknown. Landowners implementing these EP agreements are often surrounded by others who may not necessarily be working towards water quality improvements. Monitoring improvement in water quality at the bottom of the catchment has generally not occurred. Much of this work has occurred during a period of gradual land-use intensification which has contributed to increases in contaminant concentrations, particularly nitrogen.

Council now understands that some of the region’s streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries need to achieve specific reductions in contaminant levels in order to meet ecological, cultural or human health values. These range from swimming or shellfish gathering sites with too much bacterial risk, to estuaries with excessive nutrient or sediment inputs and algal growth, to streams with high sediment yields.

Not all catchment are under the same pressure. It is logical to focus on the catchments that need our attention most. Concerted land management efforts supported by higher grant rates have the strongest likelihood of achieving measurable water quality improvements, at a catchment scale. Measuring results at catchment scale is also necessary, to demonstrate value from investment.

The Focus Catchments programme does not affect the ongoing level of service for Care Groups such as Coast Care, Estuary Care and Council’s Biodiversity programmes. Existing EPs have also been honoured and implemented through until their expiry, regardless of location. Some support is still also available at lower grant grates for EPs located outside of Focus Catchments, often complemented by central government co-funding.

1.1 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We work cohesively with volunteers and others, to sustainably manage and improve our natural resources.
Freshwater for Life	We deliver solutions to local problems to improve water quality and manage quantity.

The Focus Catchment Programme aligns with a number of community outcomes, including those related to Healthy Environments and Freshwater for Life. Our Focus Catchments work is monitored in a number of different ways, including the Council’s ‘Swimmability’ KPI and through the Councils wider water quality monitoring programmes. Where required, new monitoring is being designed to assess the effectiveness of land management actions in focus catchments.

Ultimately, the Focus Catchment Programme becomes a key link between voluntary land management action and the Council’s requirements to deliver the NPS-FM.

1.1.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

High - Positive

þ Cultural

Medium - Positive

þ Social

Medium - Positive

þ Economic

Low - Positive

The Focus Catchment work contributes directly to positive environmental outcomes as its core purpose, with positive co-benefits around Cultural and Social well-beings.

2. Focus Catchment Programme

2.1 A Focus Catchment Approach

The Focus Catchment programme approach is summarised in Figure 1. The catchments were initially selected based on key water quality attributes such as nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and bacteria showing either a deteriorating trend or failing to meet a recreation/bathing standard. The overall ecological health of sensitive receiving environments (such as estuaries) was also taken into account. In this regard, Focus Catchments align closely with both the overall objectives and highest priority areas of work required under the Essential Freshwater NPS-FM implementation. Other considerations included community, tangata whenua, and industry sector demand or buy-in for action to occur, and the relative size of focus catchments in order that meaningful progress was reasonably achievable.

A review of all existing ecological and water quality data for each Focus Catchment has now been completed, which helped guide the development of Catchment Action Plans, containing objectives and actions needed to address specific water quality issues. Each catchment is unique in its issues and communities, therefore associated engagement strategies were also required to support works.

Additional water quality monitoring plans and sampling work has now commenced, to address data gaps and guide priorities within each catchment, with new science and technology being trialled wherever possible. It is important to have a means of tracking land management progress towards water quality goals, and monitoring can occur on a project basis or a full catchment scale. Ensuring that we can quantify the effectiveness of mitigation methods such as constructed treatment wetlands and best-practice drain management upgrades is important.

As progress is made through the Focus Catchment approach, regular reviews will occur, to identify and address limiting factors to uptake and maximise opportunities for success. Focus Catchment locations are also expected to evolve and shift over time to adapt to highest priority water quality issues and meet community demands.

Landowners achieving voluntary progress ahead of Council’s NPS-FM changes to the Regional Natural Resources Plan is one incentive to participation. Rules might ultimately take over from the incentives-based land management approach, where water quality objectives cannot be achieved voluntarily. The Focus Catchments work is supporting rural communities to be prepared to meet the regulatory changes likely to arrive very soon.

Figure 1: Summary of the Focus Catchment Programme Approach.

2.2 New Funding Support For Priority land Management

In addition to our existing operational budgets, Council has had success securing new external funding to support implementation of priority land management works. For example, Te Uru Rakau (Forestry New Zealand) has recently committed $1.5 million from its ‘One Billion Trees’ initiative for Council to administer, through EPs. This funding will be used for large scale tree planting on a number of special projects such as improving Kaiate Falls swimmability (see Waitao Focus Catchment update below), with a portion available to support smaller projects. The new funding will increase the scale and quality of planting projects. Two thirds of this funding has already been committed to around thirty different projects across the Region, with works scheduled to occur over the next three years. Some 60,000 trees have already been planted, using the One Billion Trees funding.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, various government agencies have released funding for ‘jobs for nature’ projects, with an emphasis on providing employment. The Ministry for the Environment’s ‘Public Waterways and Ecosystem Restoration Fund’ has provided 3 million dollars co-funding over the next 2 years towards shovel-ready riparian fencing and planting projects across over 50 properties in Focus Catchment areas, further building momentum toward water quality improvement. The Ministry of Primary Industries has also committed support towards the Waihī Estuary Focus Catchment project as outlined in the catchment update below, plus new support for wilding pine control in the Upper Rangitāiki Focus Catchment area.

2.3 New Water Quality Data Portal In Development

As part of the Focus Catchment Programme, Council is emphasising with community the linkage between land use/management practices, mitigation actions, and resulting changes in water quality. One tool to achieve this is a new Focus Catchment water quality reporting ‘data portal’ (Figure 2) which will soon be available online. This can be used as an engagement tool to help achieve participation and buy-in, and to more generally help with public understanding of the cause-effect relationships between land use actions and water quality outcomes.

For example, the impact of rainfall events and river flow on in-stream concentrations of E. coli can quickly be ascertained or compared against ‘natural’ baseline E. coli levels derived from less intensively managed areas such as bush reserves. This can help aid the uptake of land management mitigations such as establishing wider riparian buffers, and draws a strong connection between land use and water quality. The automated data portal is designed to easily adapt to new data as other monitoring programmes come online in different Focus Catchments. As part of Focus Catchment engagement, the Council website is also being utilised as a repository for catchment information for the community, with regular updates and new content being developed (https://www.boprc.govt.nz/environment/fresh-water/focus-catchments).

Figure 2: Example view of the Focus Catchment water quality reporting data portal currently in development. Sampling sites in different parts of the catchment can be selected, and users can view different water quality attribute levels (e.g. E. coli) in relation to rainfall and river flow data.

3. Focus Catchment Progress Highlights

The initial selection of 11 Focus Catchments are shown across the Region in Figure 3, with the main water quality issues (i.e. reason for catchment selection) and interim objectives summarised in Table 1.

The following sections provide key highlights on the progress made within each Focus Catchment to date, including monitoring, science investigation, partnerships, and on-the-ground land management action underway.

Figure 3: Location of Focus Catchments for high priority Land Management work.

Table 1: Summary of Focus Catchment locations, issues and objectives (The Rotorua Lakes are not included here, because each lake has its own individual Action Plan).

Area	Greater Catchment	Focus Catchment Name	Focus Catchment Main Issues/ Interim Objectives
Tauranga Moana	Tauranga Harbour	Uretara	The Uretara stream bathing site is graded a ‘D’ for the E. coli attribute in the NPS-FM, and is therefore deemed ‘un-swimmable’. Swimmability is the key objective, but alongside best-practice land management work, further scientific investigations are required to address actual health risks associated with the identified ‘avian’ E. coli source.
	Tauranga Harbour	Te Mania	Environmental issues in the Te Mania catchment are elevated sediment (suspended solids), ammoniacal nitrogen and E. coli bacteria, with objectives to halt and reverse these increasing trends and associated impacts on Tauranga Harbour.
	Tauranga Harbour	Kopurererua	Kopurererua at McCord Ave is graded a ‘D’ for the E. coli attribute in the NPS-FM, and is therefore deemed ‘un-swimmable’. Waikareo Estuary (receiving environment) also has increasing catchment derived sedimentation. Objectives target improving swimmability and reducing sediment loss from the catchment through land management initiatives.
	Tauranga Harbour	Waitao	Kaiate Falls is the worst performing bathing site monitored by Bay of Plenty Regional Council. The site is graded an ‘E’ for the E. coli attribute in the NPS-FM, and is therefore deemed ‘un-swimmable’. The objective is to address swimmability through land management/stock exclusion action upstream of the falls, and target sediment loss throughout the catchment given its wider impacts on Rangataua Estuary.
Kaituna/ Pongakawa	Kaituna	Kopuaroa	As a tributary of the Kaituna River and therefore Maketū Estuary, contaminant reduction of 63%, 38% and 60% for nitrogen, phosphorus and E. coli are recommended for the estuary to be in a moderately health state. Kopuaroa exhibits elevated E. coli, ammoniacal-nitrogen and sediment, with objectives to halt and reverse these increasing trends.
	Kaituna	Ford Road/Waitepuia	As a tributary of the Maketū Estuary, contaminant reduction of 63%, 38% and 60% for nitrogen, phosphorus and E. coli are recommended for the estuary to be in a moderately health state. The catchment exhibits elevated E. coli, nitrogen, sediment and low dissolved oxygen, with objectives to halt and reverse these increasing trends.
	Pongakawa	Waihī Estuary Catchments	Waihī Estuary requires contaminant reduction of 66%, 30% and 50% for nitrogen, phosphorus and E. coli to be in a moderately healthy ecological state. Shellfish safety in the estuary is highly variable and addressing this will be an important objective.
Eastern Catchments	Tarawera	Awakaponga Stream	This Focus Catchment work will commence in 2021/22. Issues are likely to be similar to the Kopuaroa catchment,
	Rangitaiki	Upper Rangitāiki/ Otamatea	Upper Rangitāiki catchment objectives are to halt and reverse the increasing nitrate trend and address nitrate toxicity concerns. Water clarity and sediment are also requiring attention. Specific ‘quantified’ objectives will be developed through the wider Rangitāiki WMA plan change process underway (i.e. NPS-FM implementation).
	Ohiwa	Ōhiwa Harbour Catchments	Addressing ongoing sedimentation into Ōhiwa harbour is the main objective, though nitrogen trends have also increased in the Nukuhou tributary of the harbour and require further investigation. Shellfish bacterial contamination issues also occur.
	Waiōtahe	Waiotahe	The Waiotahe Estuary sampling site breaches shellfish consumption guidelines due to the presence of faecal coliforms, with shellfish being ‘unsuitable’ for consumption and therefore the primary objective is to resolve this. Nitrate and E. coil levels are also elevated throughout the catchment, with agriculture the dominant source.

3.1 Uretara Focus Catchment

The Uretara Stream flows into the Uretara estuary in the North of Tauranga Harbour, and features a mosaic of drystock, lifestyle and horticultural land uses. Summer water testing at the Henry Rd Ford bathing site (behind the Katikati township) suggests the site is un-swimmable due to high levels of E. coli. Faecal Source tracking identified that avian (bird) derived E. coli (not cattle/sheep/deer/human etc.) is influencing the high test values. An early hypothesis was that chicken manure spread on horticultural land could be a potentially contributor, however subsequent eDNA technology testing of water samples suggests this is unlikely, with no chicken DNA being detected so far and a long period passing between manure application and E. coli concentrations increasing.

The catchment has relatively good livestock exclusion and existing riparian buffers due to Council and Community work history, which could be supporting populations of birds and waterfowl. In this instance, our next course of scientific action is to consider a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) study, which estimates actual public health risk due to exposure to pathogenic micro-organisms that may be present in the water. Pathogens like Campylobacter, Salmonella, Giardia, Cryptosporidium and noroviruses would be compared with indicator organisms such as the E. coli to help refine a new swimmability limit for the site, given that addressing avian related E. coil is difficult and not a key priority for land management works.

Throughout the catchment we have identified a range of critical source areas and steep erosion prone land currently being grazed which we will seek to proactively address with a combination of landowner information/education/advice and new livestock exclusion fencing and planting through EP agreements.

In the past year we have worked with landowners and contributed to 2.5 km of new fencing, retiring over 8 ha of high-risk land in the catchment to support water quality improvements, with more work planned for the coming year. This builds on work already undertaken in the catchment prior to the Focus Catchment Programme, including 5 km of fencing and 11 ha of land retirement.

Uretara catchment work aligns closely with the wider community initiative of the Uretara Estuary Managers and Project Parore groups, who provide landowners co-funding and facilitation support to EP agreement actions in the catchment. Project Parore has a Memorandum of Understanding with sector groups including Beef+Lamb New Zealand, DairyNZ, Zespri and NZ Avocado, which represent the major commercial land users in the wider catchment. Project Parore has also been successful with new funding support from MfE’s Freshwater Improvement Fund and most recently, significant investment from Bay Trust, to further the group’s environmental objectives in collaboration with Council.

3.2 Te Mania Focus Catchment

The Te Mania Stream has similar catchment features to the Uretara. High E. coli levels, increasing nitrogen and suspended sediment levels are the focus here. Water quality sampling is defining which tributaries are having the greatest impacts on the stream, and the estuary receiving environment. Tailored farm planning for the larger properties, including identification of critical source areas for contaminant loss, will be key to addressing these issues. Our land management services include the offer of farm nutrient budget modelling (e.g. Overseer analyses) to help identify high risk activities occurring and quantify the extent of nitrogen losses. An associated ‘MitAgator’ trial has also been conducted on one property, using the Ballance fertiliser company risk assessment tool that helps prioritise critical source areas for action depending on sediment, nitrogen and E. coli.

Given the number of kiwifruit orchards in the Te Mania and Uretara, we are also supporting Zespiri with the development of good management practice guidelines for kiwifruit orchards and have co-facilitated an open day for local growers, to discuss orchard management and water quality in the area. In the past year we have implemented 4.5 km of new fencing works retiring 16 ha of high-risk land, which builds on previous efforts to exclude livestock from 7.5 km of waterway over 30 ha of land, including establishment of 50,000 native plants in the catchment. Te Mania also sits within the wider umbrella of the Project Parore community initiative, which co-funds priority actions through Council’s EP agreements.

3.3 Kopurererua Focus Catchment

Tauranga Moana’s Kopurererua catchment has sediment and E. coli issues. A collaborative project involving BOPRC, TCC, and WBoPDC is investigating via increased water monitoring over the past year. Unlike other Focus Catchments, Kopurererua features a significant increasing portion of urban and industrial development and associated potential for heavy metal contamination, requiring new approaches outside of traditional rural land management.

In the lower urbanised catchment, our work involves partnerships with other Councils and the hapū, Ngāi Tamarawaho. We are providing input into a floodplain stream re-alignment project aimed at reducing sediment and enhancing ecological values, as well as considering inanga spawning habitat restoration through the Kopurererua Valley Reserve. Fortunately a large portion of the mid-upper catchment is already well protected in native vegetation within the Tauranga City Water Catchment Reserve, but stream-bank erosion derived sediment inputs are ongoing, requiring a new River Management Plan to prioritise action.

Catchment surface modelling work has also been completed, to identify and engage with landowners on possible locations to build ‘edge of field’ diffuse pollution attenuation tools (e.g. detainment bunds and constructed wetlands) to address sediment loss, which generally occurs during storm events in the largely ephemeral upper catchment areas. During these events, E. coil is also transported into waterways, and Faecal Source Tracking in the Kopurererua confirms ruminants (e.g. cattle) as the dominant source, requiring a focus not only on preventing direct livestock access to waterways but also addressing grazing intensity and pasture management on the steeper land.

Recent learnings on the effectiveness of detainment bund design/construction guidelines by the Rotorua Phosphorus Mitigation Project will be directly applicable to addressing sediment and E. coli in the Kopurererua rural catchment area, and will form the basis of our community engagement.

3.4 Waitao Focus Catchment

The Waitao Catchment feeds into Rangataua Bay of Tauranga Moana, and features the popular Kaiate Falls swimming site, around a mosaic of smaller lifestyle farms, forestry and indigenous vegetation remnants. There has been a permanent health warning in place at Kaiate Falls since 2015 due to high E. coli levels, making it one of the worst monitored swimmability sites in the Region. The site has had a considerable focus on water quality monitoring, investigation and land management investment to determine contamination sources and address community concerns.

With $300,000 of co-funding support from Te Uru Rakau’s One Billion Trees fund secured and key landowners on-board, the last year has seen the planning and delivery of a significant livestock exclusion and planting project across several properties on the major tributaries and critical source areas located directly upstream of the falls. Through this work, over 12 km of new fencing with generous native-planted setbacks (10 ha planted plus 20 ha existing native vegetation protected) will be established to help filter and treat overland flow run-off from the surrounding farm land. We will continue to monitor summer water quality once the farmed catchment upstream of the falls has been brought up to best-practice operation over the next few years, but there may also be a need to further investigate and potentially control sources of pest animal derived E. coli exiting from indigenous vegetation such as the Ōtawa Scenic Reserve and surrounding forest land.

The Kaiate Falls swimming site is also being utilised by ESR as part of a national study of Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment, analysing a range of pathogens in freshwater, which will support an updating of data that quantifies the risks for people using them for recreation. The last study of this type and scale was carried out over 20 years ago, and will therefore provide valuable insights to health risks and swimmability measures, and have applicability for the wider Region.

Elsewhere in the Waitao catchment, the Council is supporting several affiliates of Ngāti Pūkenga with their habitat restoration on Maori Trust owned lands, including extensive pest plant control and native planting works. Our initial support will co-develop restoration plans giving effect to hapū aspirations, followed by implementation funding for the works. Council also supports the Waitao Landcare Group, who have a long history of completing restoration work throughout the catchment. As part of our Waitao catchment approach, the large number of existing historic EP agreements in the catchment will also be revisited, with offers of maintenance support and new funding available to landowners.

3.5 Waitepuia/Ford Road Focus Catchment

In the Waitepuia/Ford Road tributaries of the Kaituna River and connected Maketū Estuary, managed lowland drainage schemes with intensive dairy land uses dominate, although kiwifruit also continues to expand on the elevated ground. With most water quality attributes severely elevated and requiring large reductions (38-60%), lowland drainage scheme areas may be the greatest challenge for improved water quality.

A research project has commenced on the Te Arawa Lakes Trust Group owned dairy farm in the lower Waitepuia catchment, in collaboration with Te Kura o Maketu, Maketu Ongatoro Wetlands Society, WBoPDC, BOPRC and Dairy NZ. The goal is to restore the mauri, biodiversity and water quality on the farm block for future generations, and findings will likely support engagement and intervention uptake with others in nearby drainage scheme areas.

The Council has commenced an intensive monitoring programme to determine the effectiveness of upgrading farm drains to the DairyNZ guideline best practice standard on the Te Arawa property, including greater fence set-backs on both sides, native planting on one side to shade water and reduce temperatures (allowing for the drain to still be cleaned), and a re-battering of drain bank sides to a 1:1 profile, which concentrates low flows in summer to prevent weeds and increase drainage capacity in winter. With this treatment being applied to some drains only and others left in their current state, fish, invertebrates, and water quality will be monitored to determine the effectiveness of such mitigation, which could then be rolled out to the remainder of the farm and surrounding catchment depending on success. The Te Arawa farm alone features over 4 km of managed waterways, with drains being a direct source of agricultural contamination around the estuary.

Carefully designed ‘constructed treatment wetlands’ are another evolving tool being trialled to treat farm/drainage discharge before it reaches sensitive areas. Planning is underway for a proposed new constructed wetland also on the Te Arawa farm, which restores over 2ha of marginal farmland alongside the existing Whakapoukorero Wetland restoration project, and treats farm run-off before reaching the estuary. In support of NIWAs new constructed wetland guidelines, we hope to contribute to national data on the performance reduction estimates for contaminants moving through constructed wetlands, which can be achieved through continuous water quality monitoring at the inflows and outflows of the wetland to measure effectiveness. Elsewhere in the catchment we have developed targeted communication material offering the range of land management services to the community. We expect momentum to build as the effectiveness of local mitigations is confirmed through monitoring.

This work is complemented by the extensive Kaituna wetland work underway such as the Te Pourepo o Kaituna project and the recently completed Kaituna re-diversion project.

3.6 Kopuaroa Focus Catchment

With its headwaters in the Pāpāmoa Hills Regional Park and Ōtawa Scenic Reserve, the Kopuaroa catchment features a diverse range of land uses feeding into the Kaituna River near Pāpāmoa. The lower catchment is within a drainage scheme area with pumping infrastructure, and is intensively farmed with dairy and maize cropping. The reminder of the catchment features mixed dry stock, horticulture and lifestyle properties. Most water quality attributes have been recorded as high, and require significant reductions to achieve a moderately healthy ecological state in the Maketū Estuary.

Our work with the intensively farmed lowland properties will focus on implementing best practice drain management upgrades, addressing critical source areas on farm, and investigating opportunities for constructed treatment wetlands to mitigate drainage water quality, before it enters the Kaituna River.

We have also offered professional farm planning and nutrient management services to manage farm systems within environmentally safe limits, and expect uptake of these services to increase significantly as engagement for the NPS-FM builds. Some tributaries of this catchment still feature unfenced waterways and biodiversity areas, with agreements currently in negotiation to permanently exclude livestock from these areas. The Summerhill farm property in the upper catchment has also considerably expanded its environmental programme with Council support, including planting of 5,000 native plants around critical source areas and becoming a showcase drystock farm for the area.

3.7 Waihī Estuary Focus Catchment

The Waihī Estuary Focus Catchment is one of the largest focus catchments in the programme, and to be in a moderately healthy ecological state, the sensitive estuary receiving environment requires reductions of 30-66% for the main water quality attributes (nitrogen, phosphorus, E. coil). Dairy land use on a pumped drainage scheme dominates on the low-lying land around the estuary, but most elevated land supports increasing kiwifruit development areas.

The Waihī catchment community is building on the Council’s engagement work from the PC12 process and is front-footing water quality issues, having recently formed a Steering Group in February with representation from landowners, tangata whenua, DairyNZ, Fonterra, Zespiri, NZAvocado and Beef&Lamb. The steering group is supported by NZ Landcare Trust and the group’s members understand the level of change that is required to restore Waihī Estuary, and that the best outcomes will be achieved through voluntary participation and local leadership. The steering group has been registered as an Incorporated Society called Wai Kokopu.

The group has successfully secured over $1.45 million from MPI’s Jobs for Nature Extension Fund, to support farmers through farm planning and farm system modelling to achieve the change required. Work is underway to co-develop a Waihī-specific Farm Environment Planning template that could be used to target the issues facing the estuary, on a voluntary and incentivised basis.

3.8 Upper Rangitāiki Focus Catchment

The upper Rangitāiki Focus Catchment is unique in that there are fewer than 10 land holders, on very large properties. The dairy, drystock and forestry land uses occur on free-draining Taupō pumice soils, making them very susceptible to nitrate leaching when land use is intensive. This can have impacts on in-stream ecological health and down-stream receiving environments such as Lake Matahina. As an initial focus, investments are being made into developing accurate baseline nutrient analyses with every landowner (Overseer), such that clear linkages can be drawn between land-use practices (e.g. stocking rate, fertiliser, cropping) and impacts on nitrate leaching rates.

Following this engagement we intend to model different farming scenarios with landowners, to achieve nitrate reductions. This may include different stocking policies, feed sources, cropping, effluent management, or land use change. Strong buy-in from this small community of landowners has been achieved, and a new catchment group has been formed.

Each property in the catchment is now implementing an EP agreement with Council, including actions such as steep land and gully retirement from grazing, pine and native plantings, and protection of indigenous areas. Over 20 km of fencing is now proposed with 50 ha of new land retirement.

In addition to considering the different impacts of farm systems, Upper Rangitāiki is the regional strong-hold for the nationally scarce and highly ecologically significant ‘frost-flat’ areas, which require active management to be preserved. Our work on wildings pines has recently been boosted by the new Government ‘Jobs for Nature’ funding support from MPI, which is contributing to employment opportunities for COVID-19 impacted forestry workers.

3.9 Ōhiwa Harbour Focus Catchment

The Nukuhou River is the largest tributary of the Ōhiwa Harbour catchment, although at least 15 other major streams also contribute. The catchment is diverse in topography and land uses, but issues with sedimentation entering the harbour are the predominant concern. Although the Council has a long history of incentivising livestock exclusion and other land management in the catchment through the wider Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy, sedimentation issues remain.

New investigations into sediment sources have commenced, including looking into where exactly in the catchment mitigations can be applied to achieve the best sediment reductions. It is likely that bank-erosion derived sediment from the meandering Nukuhou River is a significant contributor. Works such as planting of the rapidly growing shrub willows with their dense networks of roots may be a key sediment reduction tool. A River Management survey and planning exercise is underway to prioritise bank-erosion mitigations in the area, including consideration of combinations of both hard and soft engineering techniques, as appropriate.

Given the large size of the catchment and high number of inflows, the SedNetNZ ‘catchment model’ is now being considered as a land management prioritisation tool. Where water quality sampling alone is not economic/feasible to achieve the spatial prioritisation required for targeted land management mitigations, surface process models such as SedNetNZ can predict the relative contributions of sediment from different inflows to guide works such as land retirement and pole planting, and can also estimate and separate out the relative contributions of sediment from sources such as stream bank erosion versus hill slope erosion. This modelling work would also contribute to the refinement of new harbour hydrodynamic modelling to predict sediment movement within the harbour itself and therefore impacts on harbour values as part of the NPS-FM implementation process.

The Nukuhou River is now exhibiting an increasing nitrate trend, following a generally improving trend over some years. Shellfish have from time to time exceeded safe bacterial levels for consumption in the harbour, meaning working with dairy farmers in the catchment is also a key focus.

Work around addressing livestock exclusion from critical source areas is underway with over 17 new EPs being implemented. Landowners are on board with a growing farmer working group emerging to discuss farm management and actions. Over 25,000 new trees will also be established around Ōhiwa over the next two years with 35 km of fencing, in addition to the 10,000 trees already planted this season. Fencing will especially focus around the smaller unfenced tributary streams (some ephemeral) and drains, as the larger waterways are already largely fenced.

3.10 Waiōtahe Focus Catchment

The Waiōtahe Catchment east of Ōhiwa Harbour became a focus due to faecal bacteria in the popular Te Ahiaua pipi bed, causing concern amongst iwi and others in the community. This focus catchment therefore has strong alignment with the mahinga-kai objectives of the new NPS-FM. Although not clear-cut, it has been confirmed through investigation (Faecal Source Tracking) that ruminant derived E. coli is contributing to shellfish exceeding the safe consumption guidelines, leading to the public health warnings at the site.

Local farmers have been quick to respond, and an active ‘bush to sea’ catchment group has been formed to generate action. One of the key functions of the group is for farmers to learn from their peers. Farmers share what’s working on each farm to mitigate water quality issues. Their regular meetings are well attended and often involve expert guest speakers.

All 16 of the dairy farms in the catchment now have a Farm Environment Plan (Fonterra Ti aki Plan) with most implementing key actions with support of Council EP funding. Demand remains high for land management support through EP agreements, as those look for ways to address possible contributions to the shellfish issue and wider issues around nitrate and sediment. Over 20 km of new stock exclusion fencing and 20,000 trees were established in the last year, with at least the same planned again for the coming year.

A more recent science investigation (currently underway) is hoping to be more conclusive on causal links, and will also draw on quantitative microbial risk assessment advancements for better consideration of human health factors. Landowners are well committed to actions to address livestock access to waterways, critical source areas, effluent management, and overland flow, from which E. coli is most readily derived.

4. Considerations

4.1 Risks and Mitigations

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council has a long history of successfully delivering land management action. A key focus has been to implement best management practice, but exactly what that looks like has evolved over time. For example, while stock exclusion was a priority 10 years ago, most catchments have now achieved >95% stock exclusion from waterways, and the focus is shifting towards achieving wider set-backs and buffers, retirement of erosion-prone steeper land, biodiversity site restoration, and implementation of ‘edge of field’ mitigations such as treatment wetlands and detainment bunds.

Greater consideration is also given to technological advancements, education, farm planning approaches and farm systems changes required to address water quality. Water quality issues remain complex, and land management work alone may not achieve the water quality improvements required by the NPSFM. Demand remains as strong as ever for Council’s incentivised support, as the number of catchment groups grows and communities take ownership of the issues at hand.

4.2 Climate Change

Mitigation			Adaptation
Reduce GHG emissions	Produce GHG emissions	Sequester carbon	Anticipate climate change impacts	Respond to climate change impacts
☒	☐	☒	☒	☐

Land management work contributes positively towards buffering the effects of climate change, with permanent native tree planting and steep land retirement reducing the impacts of soil loss from severe weather events, and riparian set-back/wetlands mitigating against changes in water levels.

Planting work also contributes significantly towards carbon sequestration. During the last planting season, Council planted or contributed to the planting of 250,000 plants, predicted to sequester over 38,000 tonnes of carbon over the next 80 years.

4.3 Implications for Māori

Focus Catchment work spans the rohe of a number of different iwi/hapū. Consideration has been given to the aspirations of iwi/hapu in the data capture and action planning stages of each focus catchment programme, with strengthening partnerships in various stages of engagement and development.

For the most part there is very close alignment between Council’s and iwi/hapū objectives around water quality, swimmability and protecting and enhancing habitat for mahinga kai. Our Focus Catchment Programme extends to Māori landholders in the community, with numerous partnership projects underway in a number of different areas, as mentioned in this report above.

The Focus Catchment programme engagement with tangata whenua, should not be confused with the Council’s legislative requirement for consultation under the wider implementation of the NPS-FM.

4.4 Community Engagement

INVOLVE

Whakaura

To work directly with affected communities throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are consistently understood and fully considered in Council’s decision making.

The entire Focus Catchment Programme approach relies strongly on collaborative, voluntary work with landowners and community to achieve water quality objectives.

4.5 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this work fits within the allocated budget for the programme. Demand remains high for incentivised land management work and new Government funding is increasing the scale and quality of on-the-ground actions possible. Our existing operational budgets have been used to leverage matching Central Government co-funding, such that our programme has expanded significantly for the next 2 years.

5. Next Steps

Land management will continue with the evolution of its Focus Catchments approach to address serious water quality issues in the Region, with a commitment to the on-the-ground incentivised voluntary action in priority locations, and leverage of new co-funding support, and expanded partnerships with our communities.



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Kirsty Brown, Rivers and Drainage Assets Manager
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	Provide an update on key projects and works underway in the Rivers and Drainage area.

Rivers and Drainage Update

Executive Summary

The Rivers and Drainage Activity have a substantial programme of work to deliver in the 2020/21 financial year. Ongoing maintenance and renewals programmes are on track. These ensure our drainage and river networks are operational and providing agreed levels of service.

The substantial capital works programmed for 2020/21 includes year four of the April 2017 Flood Repair programme, along with climate resilience and flood protection projects supported by the Crown Infrastructure Partnership post COVID-19 funding package.

The Flood Protection and Drainage Bylaws 2020 will be adopted this month and the Non-scheme Erosion Repair Consent application has been publicly notified.

River Advisory Groups are kept up to date with all major river scheme activities, with the next round of meetings are scheduled for March 2021.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Rivers and Drainage Update.

1. Introduction

The Rivers and Drainage activity works to protect people, property and livelihoods from river flooding and problems associated with erosion and land drainage. This is achieved through the river and drainage schemes it manages and the assets within those schemes.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on key projects and works within the Rivers and Drainage area, commencing 1 July 2020.

1.1 Alignment with Strategic Framework

Safe and Resilient Communities	We support community safety through flood protection and navigation safety.
A Vibrant Region	We invest appropriately in infrastructure to support sustainable development.
The Way We Work	We deliver value to our ratepayers and our customers.

Floods are New Zealand’s most regular and significant natural hazard. Our river and drainage schemes provide flood protection and land drainage to some of the most productive land and most inhabited areas in the region. Flood protection infrastructure provides assurance to the region’s economy and local communities.

1.1.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

Low - Positive

þ Cultural

Medium - Positive

þ Social

High - Positive

þ Economic

High - Positive

Our river and drainage schemes provide important, long term infrastructure which supports our community by protecting people, property and livelihoods from flooding and land drainage issues. This is vital to community wellbeing.

2. Rivers and Drainage Activity

2.1 Key updates

2.1.1 River Scheme Advisory Groups Meetings

The River Scheme Advisory Groups enable effective two-way communication between scheme ratepayers, Regional Councillors and senior staff. These groups are well utilised to seek community input on key scheme decision-making matters and to seek advice on disseminating scheme information to local ratepayers.

Meetings with group members are held twice a year in March and September. This year an additional workshop was held with group members in August 2020 to obtain their feedback on the proposed Long Term Plan (LTP) and budgets.

Key topics covered at the September 2020 round of meetings included:

· Capital and maintenance programme updates (including April 2017 Flood Repair Project).

· Crown Infrastructure funding secured for the capital works programme.

· Finance update report specific to each scheme.

· LTP considerations and Rivers & Drainage Asset Management Plan review.

· Infrastructure insurance review.

· Proposed Flood Protection and Drainage Bylaws 2020 update.

· Advisory Group membership (new appointees have been approved for vacancies in the Rangitaiki and Kaituna River Scheme advisory groups).

2.1.2 2020/21 Maintenance Works Programme

The ongoing maintenance programme ensures our drainage and river networks are operational and providing agreed levels of service. This work is completed in accordance with the Rivers and Drainage Asset Management Plan and includes activities like drain desilting, weed spraying, pump station operation, vegetation control, flood gate maintenance and associated habitat enhancement works.

The Annual Plan 2020/21 budget for maintenance across all river and drainage schemes is approximately $11 million. Works are currently tracking well and will ramp up over the summer season.

Condition assessments for the non-critical stopbank infrastructure networks are also currently underway. Asset condition is a measure of the physical state of the asset which is visually assessed by staff/contractors and graded between 1 (very good) and 5 (very poor). Monitoring asset condition enables us to plan our maintenance, forecast renewal requirements and develop proactive work programmes.

2.1.3 2020/21 Capital Works Programme and Update

There is a significant capital works programme for 2020/21 with a budget valued at $30.5 million (including the April 2017 Flood Repair Project). As we enter the summer construction season, the works programme will accelerate.

Under the Crown Infrastructure Partnership post COVID-19 package ($23M), funding has been secured for six climate resilience and flood protection projects in the capital programme, including:

· Rangitāiki Floodway Stage 6 and spillway – works have commenced for Stage 6 which involves 3 tranches of work. Stage 6a is underway and tracking well, this comprises stop bank raising on the left bank of the floodway north of McLean Road and is expected to be complete in May 2021. Stage 6b contract works have now been awarded and work will begin before Christmas. Stage 6c will be available for tender this month and is scheduled to start early 2021. The completion of the Rangitāiki Floodway will be realised through the spillway portion of the project which is planned for late 2021.

· Rangitāiki Floodwalls – replacement of three existing concrete floodwalls on the Rangitāiki River. Construction of the Greig Road floodwall is underway and scheduled for completion early 2021. Eastbank Road floodwall replacement design has been completed and works are to commence March 2021. Building condition assessments have been carried out at the College Road floodwall site which will inform the final design. Construction works are scheduled for October 2021 for College Road.

· Kaituna Mole upgrade – refurbishment of the existing structure and the construction of community amenities are in the planning and procurement stages. Physical works are scheduled to start early 2021.

· Whakatāne River stopbank and floodwall raising – remediating seepage issues has commenced. Investigations to inform options continues for modifying floodwalls and stopbank structures. Whakatāne District Council consultation for the town revitalisation project “Te Ara Hou” has been extended and this will feed into the feasible options for the riverfront structures.

· Ngongotahā Stream flood mitigation - installation of new upper-catchment detention bunds and removing of high risk trees is underway, along with re-contouring of the high flow bypasses.

· Waioeka Estuary restoration and floodway enhancement. Discussions regarding land purchase are underway with the relevant property owners. Initial discussions and Hui have been held with key stakeholders.

The funding agreement for the Crown Infrastructure projects has been agreed with Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and allows for quarterly payments in advance based on initial project plans. The agreement also provides for a suite of social procurement outcomes to be met through the delivery of these infrastructure projects.

2.1.4 Flood Protection and Drainage Bylaws 2020

The Flood Protection and Drainage Bylaws are regulations that safeguard flood protection and land drainage assets from third party damage or misuse. As required by the Local Government Act 2002, the Bylaws have been under review since 2019. This is to ensure they are still fit-for-purpose and informed by latest science and recent flood information.

Submissions on the bylaw review closed 28 April 2020 with a total of 43 submissions received. Fifteen organisations and individuals spoke at the hearings on 26 August 2020 and the final bylaw will be recommended to Council for adoption on 17 December.

2.1.5 Non-scheme Erosion Repair - Consent Renewal

The Regional Council held consent for urgent waterway protection works (RM18-0211) was publicly notified on 23 November 2020. This consent allows for various erosion and flood protection activities to be carried out in and adjacent to waterways across the region (outside managed River Scheme maintenance areas). This enables small-scale works undertaken at the request of landowners to remedy bank erosion, protect people and property from flooding, and/or to enhance riparian habitats. These activities generally occur in sections of river adjoining rural production land or where buildings or infrastructure are threatened. The works are mostly funded by owners who must also take responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of any assets created.

Significant targeted consultation over the past 12-18 months has informed the consent renewal, including with over 45 primarily tangata whenua groups. Due to the holiday period public submissions will be open until 1 February 2021.

2.1.6 April 2017 Flood Repair Project Update

The April 2017 Flood Repair Project is now into its final year in its four year programme timeframe. As at 31 October 2020, 341 repair sites had been completed and a further 90 low priority sites have been identified as either self-healed or no longer requiring work. This brings progress through the programme to 431 sites (83% of the programme) now complete.

It is likely that a small number of works in the Rangitāiki-Tarawera and Whakatāne-Tauranga River Schemes will extend beyond the original four year project timeframe however this is not expected to negatively impact expenditure or revenue.

The cost to complete the remaining programme is tracking only slightly ahead of the original estimates as is the revenue recovery across the entire programme. As we enter the summer construction season, works will increase across the outstanding schemes.

The council will shortly initiate a review of the Flood Repair Project to capture lessons learned. The review will be particularly focused on whether the council might use different approaches should a similar event occur in the future, given the increased future costs of a substantial repair programme to our river scheme targeted ratepayers. It will also look into the cumulative maintenance costs of the new assets created, over time.

2.1.7 Rock Procurement

At the end of October 2020, Council adopted a Procurement Plan for quarried rock material. Meetings with suppliers are scheduled for mid-December and these will inform an invitation to negotiate for safety stockpiles across the river schemes.

3. Considerations

3.1 Climate Change

Council has a programme to provide for adaptation to the changes we are facing with future climate change and the potential impacts on some of the region’s environments and sectors. These adaptations are based on the climate change projections outlined in the NIWA report “Climate Change Projections and Impacts for the Bay of Plenty Region” October 2019.

Adaptation information is included into existing capital improvement and maintenance programmes. By integrating climate information into programme development and investment decisions, Council can avoid dysfunctional projects e.g. investing in a stopbank that is likely to be inundated by rising sea levels.

3.2 Implications for Māori

Our flood protection and land drainage activity is vital in our role in providing services that improve the quality of our community’s lives. This includes benefiting the social, cultural and economic well-being of Māori and supports the strong spiritual bonds Māori have to awa, whenua and the natural world.

Council acknowledges that the relationships it has with Māori are central to the fulfilment of its statutory responsibilities and will continue to utilise a range of different mechanisms to engage with the wider Māori community and ensure their views are appropriately represented in the decision-making process.

3.3 Community Engagement

INFORM

Whakamōhio

To provide affected communities with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.

3.4 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications associated with this update report.

4. Next Steps

Deliver works and services in keeping with the Annual Plan 2020/21 and the Rivers and Drainage Asset Management Plan.



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Anna Dawson, Land Management Officer (Tauranga)
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	Progress report on the efforts of local care groups

Annual Care Group Summary Report

Executive Summary

This report updates the committee on the outstanding voluntary contribution our local communities make to the protection and enhancement of our natural environment across the Bay of Plenty region.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Annual Care Group Summary Report.

1. Introduction

The engagement and mobilisation of local communities in support of shared environmental outcomes, is critical to the achievement of council’s objectives.

Council’s ongoing financial and practical support of care and catchment groups is, as outlined below, an ongoing success story that makes a significant contribution to the achievement of these objectives.

1.1 Legislative Framework

The work of community care groups sits outside of legislated council responses. It represents a voluntary effort by unpaid members of the community who are passionate about protecting nature.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We work cohesively with volunteers and others, to sustainably manage and improve our natural resources.
Freshwater for Life	We collaborate with others to maintain and improve our water resource for future generations.
A Vibrant Region	We work with and connect the right people to create a prosperous region and economy.
The Way We Work	We deliver value to our ratepayers and our customers.

The work of our supported community volunteer organisations fits hand in glove with our strategic framework and with respect to the outcomes above these groups activities are often supporting multiple strategies with a single outcome.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

¨ Environmental

High - Positive

¨ Cultural

Low - Positive

¨ Social

High - Positive

¨ Economic

Low - Positive

2. Summary of Care Group, Predator Free, Catchment Group and Coastcare activities 2020

2.1 Region wide

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council supports over 50 Land Care and Estuary Care groups across the region. Of these, 10 groups are operating at a catchment scale. In addition, Council supports the Coast Care programme across the region.

Despite the Covid-19 disruption resulting in cancelled or postponed several working days and events, these groups have still achieved amazing results and generated many media-worthy stories to tell, as a reflection of their hard work.

2.1.1 Eastern Update

Council supports 16 care groups in this area. The earliest group began work in 2003 and is still going 17 years later. The areas they operate in are principally DOC and District Council reserves, but their activities often incorporate adjacent private land. Importantly, almost all these areas are classified as priority biodiversity sites.

Most of the groups carry out pest control. The Nukuhou Saltmarsh Care Group for example carries out comprehensive pest control covering 22ha of Ōhiwa Harbour saltmarsh and the 86ha Uretara Island. Their own outcome monitoring has shown a quadrupling of the fern bird population, since they began pest control.

Most of the groups have ongoing native restoration planting projects. The most ambitious of these is the Tirohanga Dunes group who, since 2012, have planted about 20,000 plants in this 9km stretch of previously heavily degraded back-dune.

Ron Campbell, in his 90’s, never misses a Tirohanga Dunes planting day

Over the last year, between them, 10 of the eastern Bay of Plenty groups who keep accurate records groups have:

· Planted 2,800 native plants

· Caught 55 mustelids, 548 rats, 109 mice, 22 possums, 5 hedgehogs, 4 cats

· Used 600kg of bait

· Contributed about 3,200 hours of volunteer labour

Several of the groups promote the biodiversity values of, and access to, their area to the visiting public, building walking tracks, providing information pamphlets and interpretation signage.

Saltmarsh boardwalk constructed by Nukuhou Saltmarsh Care Group

In addition to care groups we also support 3 catchment groups in the east (Waiōtahe, Rangitāiki and less formally, Nukuhou). These groups mainly consist of landowners within a catchment who have a common interest in improving their farming practices to reduce their impact on the wider environment.

Descriptive panels in the Hukutaia Domain. Most of the photos were taken by care group members in the domain. A panel describing some of the insect life in the domain is to be added shortly.

Our support for these groups consists of group coordination, providing technical support or access to it, financial support for land management activities and field trips around best management practices. The most recent is the upper Rangitāiki catchment group which now has 100% buy in from the catchment landowners. These types of groups are becoming more popular as a way for landowners, council, and industry organisations to collaboratively work on environmental issues within a catchment.

2.1.2 Rotorua Update

There are 5 very active groups in Rotorua, the earliest of which were established in the early 1990’s. These groups cover a wide range of activities from pest plant and animal control to native plantings across many different environments including streams, lakes and native bush.

There are also currently two catchment groups - one (Paradise Valley) is well established and one (Hauraki) that is in the early stages of development. A number of individual land-owner environmental programmes have already been generated by these groups.

Jaap van Dorsser walks over the Awahou stream, surrounded by the lush native bush. This area was previously covered in blackberry and barberry.

2.1.3 Western Update

29 Land Care and Estuary Care Groups operate in the Western Bay, Tauranga City and Kaituna Catchments. Of these 17 report their volunteers hours and these groups alone have contributed 17,500 volunteer hours this calendar year to date.

In order to improve the capture of care group activities across the Rohe, staff initiated, with the support of a number of groups, the development of a mobile GIS mapping app.

A success story already, 17 groups are using the beta version of the app in advance of its official launch early next year. The 2020 data regarding pest animal control undertaken by these 17 groups is currently being recorded and can be seen in the dashboard image below.

The final product of the GIS app will also record plants, monitoring, volunteer hours and much more.

Care Group Video:

Welcome Bay Estuary Care Group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwKBpmvDufM

Friends of the Blade:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U2XR6TwOzc

2.1.4 Predator Free BOP

Predator Free BOP continues to grow in popularity and expand in urban back yards throughout Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty. There are now 44+ suburbs with community groups currently backyard trapping in Tauranga City and Western Bay of Plenty Districts. To date, 2941 traps have been registered and 7940 trapped pests have been recorded through the online portal.

2.1.5 Coast Care Bay of Plenty

Coast Care Bay of Plenty received great support post COVID-19 lock down from the community. Many volunteers had taken the opportunity during lock down to enjoy the outdoors and their local neighbourhood environment, so connection to the beach environment was high. Coast Care has harnessed this enthusiasm to deliver another outstanding planting season. 4,300 volunteers and another 2,700 school students spent 7,900 hours to get 70,000 plants into the ground between June and September.

The Coast Care Bay of Plenty programme started 25 years ago and since then 250,000 volunteers have donated 300,000 hrs of their time to plant 1.5million plants along the sandy coastline of the Bay of Plenty. These volunteers have helped to build a resilient community by increasing the performance of the dune system and creating a natural buffer to storm events and the effects of climate change.

A current challenge faced by Coast Care Bay of Plenty is the creeping out into the frontal dune area of weed grasses, like Indian Doab and pushing out the native species. Coast Care and its partner agencies are working to find innovative and cost effective solutions to these grass weed issues.

3. Considerations

3.1 Climate Change

Mitigation			Adaptation
Reduce GHG emissions	Produce GHG emissions	Sequester carbon	Anticipate climate change impacts	Respond to climate change impacts
☐	☐	☐	☐	☒

One outcome of our care group programmes is that our volunteers leave with a greater understanding of the environmental issues (including climate change) facing their communities. Care groups often will combine the planting and pest control mahi with opportunities to educate their volunteers. This in turn results in greater resilience within the wider communities to which these volunteers belong.

3.2 Implications for Māori

Iwi and hapū are often supporters of the work of care groups and are commonly engaged in some way by care groups, on occasion providing a blessing for projects in situations where the whenua concerned is of particular significance. Iwi are key partners in some of the larger projects, for example the Whakatāne kiwi project. Māori are also involved in some of the farmer-led catchment groups.

The environmental enhancement work achieved by care groups has positive implications for Māori, as for the public generally. Efforts to enhance the outputs achieved by such groups is likely to be seen by Māori as a good investment.

Waharoa carved by Upokorehe for the entrance to the Hukutaia Domain, Ōpōtiki. There is a close relationship between Upokorehe and the care group who look after this reserve.

3.3 Community Engagement

EMPOWER

Whakamanahia

To place final decision-making in the hands of affected communities.

Staff are aware that although Council supports care groups in their many forms, the groups should remain community owned initiatives. By doing so we ensure that a high level of engagement and independence is maintained.

3.4 Financial Implications

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this work all fits within the allocated budgets.

4. Next Steps

The support and empowerment of community owned care groups contributes significantly to Council’s community outcomes. Council’s support through staff time and financial assistance without doubt represents great value to our ratepayers.



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Alex Miller, Compliance Manager - Primary Industry & Enforcemen
Report Authoriser:	Sarah Omundsen, General Manager, Regulatory Services
Purpose:	This report provides a brief summary of Regional Council’s compliance, monitoring and enforcement activity through the 2019/2020 year.

2019/2020 Regulatory Compliance Activity Report

Executive Summary

This report provides the Committee with an overview of the Regulatory Compliance Activity for the 2019/20 year, including:

· 4027 site inspections on 2808 resource consents were undertaken, and 8764 performance monitoring returns from consent holders were reviewed. These site inspections showed that 84% of were complying with their consents, and less than 1.5% were in significant non-compliance. This is an improvement on the previous year’s results in terms of overall compliance, although there was a marginal increase in moderate and significant non-compliance

· Regional Council issued 117 abatement notices, 25 infringement notices, and received decisions from the court in relation to 4 matters, resulting in a total of $138,675 in fines and an enforcement order.

· 3,862 calls were received and responded to through the Pollution Hotline, which is almost 10% more than the previous year.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, 2019/2020 Regulatory Compliance Activity Report.

1. Introduction

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Regional Council) uses a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to manage the environmental impacts of activities throughout the region, including rules and resource consents made under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Compliance with the requirements of these rules and resource consents provides an important measure of how we, as a regulatory authority, engage with the community to manage environmental impacts.

This report provides a brief summary of Regional Council’s compliance, monitoring and enforcement activity through the 2019/2020 year.

1.1 Legislative Framework

The Regulatory Compliance function primarily operates as a core council requirement under the Resource Management Act; which sets out an obligation for Regional Councils to monitor and enforce compliance with the Act and any associated instruments (eg. NES), Regional plan rules and resource consents.

There is some crossover with other legislation through activities such as incident response and enforcement proceedings.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We develop and implement regional plans and policy to protect our natural environment.
The Way We Work	We provide great customer service.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

High - Positive

¨ Cultural

¨ Social

¨ Economic

2. Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring is an important tool for ensuring that consent holders and members of the public are undertaking activities in the correct manner, and complying with the conditions of any applicable resource consents or Regional Plan rules.

Consented activities are monitored through a combination of site inspections and desktop performance monitoring, which involves the review of data and reporting provided by consent holders.

The frequency for site inspections is determined according to a range of factors, including the nature, scale, and environmental risks associated with the activity. This frequency is reviewed annually and outlined in Council’s RMA and Building Act Charges Policy.

The frequency for performance monitoring is considered during the consent application process, and set out in the conditions of a resource consent.

2.1 2019/20 Compliance Monitoring Results

Throughout 2019/20, Regional Council undertook 4027 site inspections on 2808 resource consents, and reviewed 8764 performance monitoring returns from consent holders.

Compliance results for site inspections showed that 84% of were complying with their consents, and less than 1.5% were in significant non-compliance. This is an improvement on the previous year’s results in terms of overall compliance, although there was a marginal increase in moderate and significant non-compliance.

Of the 8764 Performance Monitoring returns assessed, 84% were found to be compliant, which is a significant improvement on the 71% observed in the previous year. The majority of non-compliance was considered to be low risk, with only 18 (0.2%) significant non-compliances identified.

The most frequently monitored activities were earthworks, dairy effluent discharges, and water takes. This is consistent with previous years, and reflects both the environmental risks associated with these activities, and the volume in which they occur within Bay of Plenty Region.

A number of other activities, such as major infrastructure and industrial facilities, can also present a significant risk and are inspected regularly; however, these are fewer in number, and often have a more significant reliance on performance monitoring.

Compliance results for dairy effluent discharges were slightly poorer than 2018/19 (70% complying compared to 79% in 2019/20); however, the majority of issues were considered to be low risk, with only 3.4% inspections resulting in a significant non-compliance grading and no breaches resulting in prosecutions being commenced.

Performance on earthworks sites remained strong with 88.5% compliance across all inspections; this reflects the significant effort that has been put into monitoring earthworks sites and industry engagement and education, particularly in high-risk and/or intensive development areas in the Western Bay of Plenty.

A summary of compliance inspection results for high risk and/or priority activities is provided in Table 1, below.

Activity	Total	Complying		Low Risk Non- Compliance		Moderate Non-Compliance		Significant Non-Compliance
Activity	Total	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Dairy	295	207	70.2	28	9.5	50	16.9	10	3.4
Discharges to Air	180	149	82.8	13	7.2	17	9.4	1	0.6
Earthworks	1131	1003	88.7	69	6.1	49	4.3	10	0.9
Forestry	89	69	77.5	14	15.7	5	5.6	1	1.1
Geothermal	204	124	60.8	49	24.0	29	14.2	2	1.0
Municipal Wastewater	130	79	60.8	27	20.8	14	10.8	10	7.7
OSET	28	18	64.3	6	21.4	3	10.7	1	3.6
Water Takes	415	376	90.6	21	5.1	11	2.7	7	1.7

Table 1: Compliance Results for High Risk/Priority Activities

The total number of inspections is approximately 31% more than the previous year. This follows a trend of increasing number of inspections undertaken over the past four years (refer to Figure 3) due to the increasing numbers of resource consents issued throughout the region as well as implementing further efficiencies in rolling out our compliance programme.

3. Enforcement

In 2019/2020, Regional Council Received decisions from the court in relation to 4 matters, resulting in a total of $138,675 in fines and an enforcement order. These decisions are outlined in Table 2, below. As of 1 July 2019, 13 cases remain before the courts.

Matter	Summary
BOPRC v David Kehely and DJK Limited	David Kehely and DJK Ltd were prosecuted in relation to a discharge of dairy effluent to land which reached water in the Waimapu catchment. The offense was brought to the attention of regional council by members of the public who identified the effluent contaminating a swimming hole downstream. Following a restorative justice process with the complainants, DJK Limited was convicted and fined $47,000 and David Kehely was convicted and discharged.
BOPRC v Graeme Willacy	This prosecution was in relation to a discharge of dairy effluent to land, which subsequently reached a waterway in Rerewhakaituu. Mr Willacy plead guilty to the charges relating to his role in the offending, and was and fined $5,000 on 3 March 2020. Note: Charges were also laid against the farm owner and consent holder in relation to this incident, which remain before the courts.
BOPRC v Baygold Holdings Ltd.	Baygold Holdings Ltd were prosecuted in regards to discharges of sediment laden stormwater from a site in Pikowai where earthworks was being undertaken for horticultural conversion; the failures occurred as a result of a number of breaches of the relevant earthworks consent. Baygold Holdings Ltd plead guilty, and were convicted and fined $49,875 on 23 January 2020 Note: Charges were also laid against Greg Vercoe and Vercoe Contracting Ltd, the contractor who undertook the work. Both Greg Vercoe and the company were found guilty following a trial in June 2020, and subsequently convicted and fined a combined total of $16,800 in August 2020. This is the third time that BOPRC has successfully prosecuted Vercoe Contracting Ltd.
Ziwi Ltd & Ziwipeak Ltd enforcement order application	In June 2019, BOPRC applied for an enforcement order in relation to ongoing air discharges from the Ziwi pet food manufacturing facility. Ziwi consented to the orders, which required them to prepare and comply with a comprehensive odour management plan and apply for resource consent. The enforcement orders were issued on 20 February 2020.

Table 2: Prosecution Decisions Received in 2019/20

Regional Council issued 117 abatement notices, and 25 infringement notices, totalling $22,300 in fines. The majority of abatement and infringement notices related to Section 15 offences (discharges of a contaminant).

4. Pollution Hotline Response

The Pollution Hotline is a 24/7 service for members of the community to report incidents and pollution which may be in breach of consent conditions or regional plan rules. In addition to providing an opportunity to identify and respond to incidents as and when they happen, it provides a useful insight into community concerns, particularly when these relate to permitted activities and/or emerging issues.

In 2019/20, Regional Council received and responded to 3,862 calls through its Pollution Hotline, which is almost 10% more than the previous year. This continues a trend of ongoing increases to the number of calls over the last nine years.

Outside of business hours (weekends, and 4:30pm – 8:30am weekdays), the Pollution Hotline is staffed with an on-call duty officer, in order to ensure that any serious incidents are appropriately responded to as soon as possible; this is particularly important for time-critical incidents, such as oil spills or discharges to the environment. After-hours calls account for approximately 37% of calls to the hotline in 2019/20.

95% of service requests were actioned within three days, with the majority (89%) responded to within a day or less. 62 calls were classified as urgent, and attended to within less than 12 hours.

Regional Council conducts follow-up phone calls for all substantiated complaints, in order to determine customer satisfaction and ensure that a high level of service is being provided to the community; the results of these surveys for the 2019/20 year found that 88% of customers were satisfied with the service they received.

In responding to service requests, Regional Council substantiated 720 breaches of consent conditions and/or regional plan rules, which accounts for 20% of all calls, and is slightly less than identified in 2018/19.

January and February 2020 were the busiest months, with 416 and 467 calls, respectively. This is consistent with previous years, with calls peaking over the summer months; although, it is worth noting that the number of calls received throughout the year was consistently higher.

Similar to previous years, the majority of calls (76%) related to air quality, with approximately half of those being related to odour.

5. National Benchmarking

For the last three years, the Regional Sector Compliance and Enforcement Special Interest Group (CESIG) has produced an annual report of compliance data collected from Regional Councils and Unitary Authorities. The report is primarily for the purpose of promoting consistency across the regional sector; it also provides an opportunity to benchmark compliance performance in the Bay of Plenty, compared to the rest of the country, at a high level.

The results presented in the 2019/20 report indicate that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council undertakes a significant volume of work compared to other regions, responding to the second highest number of incidents/service requests out of all regional councils[1], with only Environment Canterbury receiving more in 2019/20. Similarly, Regional Council undertook the fifth most compliance inspections of all regional councils, and monitored 85% of the required consents compared to a national average of 80%.

Similarly, Regional Council is relatively active in the enforcement space, with the third highest number of prosecutions currently before the courts, and is consistent in terms of the number of abatement and infringement notices issued, when compared to similar sized Regions.

A direct comparison remains limited due to some inconsistencies in reporting format; however, compliance levels observed in the Bay of Plenty appear to be slightly higher than the national average, with lower levels of significant (1.5% compared to a national average of 2%) and moderate non-compliance (6% compared to a national average of 8%) observed.

Note: at the time of writing, the 2019/20 CME Metrics Report is embargoed, pending a formal release. It is expected that the report will be available before the end of 2020, at which time a copy will be provided directly to Councillors, along with a summary of key points highlighted for the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

6. Impacts of CoVID-19/Lockdown

As with most activities, CoVID-19 and the initial lockdowns through March-April 2020 resulted in some challenges and disruption to the work programme. However, staff continued to respond to urgent complaints during all levels of lockdown and, while physical site inspections were restricted during level four lockdown, monitoring of compliance returns and reports was able to continue throughout the period; this was particularly useful for a number of activities which continued as essential services (ie. primary industries).

6.1 Compliance Decision Group

Similar to other councils around the country, Regional Council implemented a process for consent holders to apply for discretion to waive or postpone complying with specific consent conditions that were unable to be met under level four lockdown requirements, or as a result of disruption caused through lockdown. Applicants were required to demonstrate that they had considered alternatives to avoid the non-compliance, that the effect of any non-compliance was going to be mitigated, and that the non-compliance was cause by disruption from the lockdown, rather than general poor planning or other systemic issues.

Regional Council reviewed 40 applications for exemption, with the majority being conditionally approved. This initially consisted predominantly of monitoring requirements where third-party contractors were unavailable and/or the activity was not occurring at the time; however, as lockdown continued, Regional Council also began to receive a number of applications from earthworks developers who, as a result of the time lost, were subsequently unable to complete works before the winter shutdown on 30 April. All approved requests were subject to further compliance monitoring, with all but two earthworks sites completing works within the revised timeframes given.

7. Considerations

7.1 Risks and Mitigations

The regulatory compliance function operates in a number of high risk areas, both in terms of environmental risk (particularly through the incident response function), and legal risk through the enforcement function. Regional Council has a number of robust systems and policies in place to manage and mitigate these risks.

7.2 Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

7.3 Implications for Māori

The Māori population in the Bay of Plenty equates to about 28% of the total population. BOPRC has clear statutory obligations to Māori under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), and the RMA. In particular, Part 2, Sections 6 and 7 of the RMA recognises and provides for participation in decision-making, having regard to kaitiakitanga, consultation and fostering development.

Tangata whenua, as kaitiaki, seek to protect the natural and physical environment, waahi tapu and other sites of cultural significance to ensure community and cultural sustainability is achieved. This aligns closely with the goals of compliance monitoring and enforcement, and is considered in the day to day implementation of our compliance programme.

In practical terms, this may include ensuring tangata whenua are notified of incidents in their rohe ("no surprises" approach), and seeking involvement in projects where appropriate (eg. marae wastewater).

He waka eke noa – We’re all in this together.

7.4 Community Engagement

Engagement with the community is not required as the report is of a procedural nature.

7.5 Financial Implications

If the recommendation is adopted by Council, will it result in:

If the answer is ‘no’ to both questions please select the dropdown option 1 and complete appropriately.

If the answer is ‘yes’ to either question please select “Budget Implications” in the building block below and liaise with your Management Accountant in order to complete the Financial Impact table.

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this fits within the allocated budget.

8. Next Steps

Next Steps: What next? What resources are needed? Further analysis? Timeframes ahead. Any consultation planned. Remind Council of the process ahead. Next update to Council?

Conclusion: Short concluding remarks. Referring back to recommendations. No new content.

The Regulatory Compliance group will continue to investigate process improvements to ensure that the compliance monitoring programme is implemented effectively and efficiently. Similarly, staff are continuing to hone data over time to provide avenues for more proactive approaches to encouraging compliance.

Priority focus areas in the future include implementing the recently gazetted National Environmental Standard for Freshwater, and continued work in the Air Quality space, as well as planning for further changes through the development of new plans under the revised National Policy Statement for Freshwater and wider RMA legislative reviews.



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Pim De Monchy, Coastal Catchments Manager and Courtney Bell, Senior Projects Officer (Coastal Catchments)
Report Authoriser:	Chris Ingle, General Manager, Integrated Catchments
Purpose:	To update Councillors on the project and seek endorsement to proceed based on the concept design developed to date.

Papamoa Hills Upgrade Project - Te Uku o Takakopiri

Executive Summary

This paper outlines a concept plan for the Pāpāmoa Hills Upgrade Project – Te Uku o Takakopiri.

The concept plan has been co-designed in partnership with representatives from Waitaha, Ngā Potiki, Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti He, and is endorsed by them for presentation to Councillors.

Staff now seek Council’s approval to proceed to the next stage of detailed design and subsequent implementation.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Papamoa Hills Upgrade Project - Te Uku o Takakopiri.

2 Endorses the attached project concept document that has been co-designed with, and endorsed by, tangata whenua.

3 Directs staff to proceed to detailed design, updating of cost estimates and commencing procurement planning for construction starting in 2021.

4 Considers selecting a small group of Councillors to be part of the detailed design process alongside tangata whenua.

1. Introduction

Te Rae o Pāpāmoa, or Pāpāmoa Hills Cultural Heritage Regional Park, is one of the most significant cultural landscapes in New Zealand. It was established as a park following a purchase of land from the McNaughton family by Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council in 2002, and a subsequent on-sale to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and opening to the public in 2004. Since that time, Council has managed the park for the benefit of the regional community, in a close working relationship with representatives from Waitaha, Ngā Potiki, Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti He.

In the early days, access to the park was considered most likely from Te Puke Highway opposite Bell Rd. However, this option was not supported due to traffic safety issues, leading to the formation of a basic 70-space carpark and associated facilities at the end of Poplar Lane on land leased from Fulton Hogan adjacent to their quarry. Limited signage and interpretation was installed at the time.

Use of the park has grown at over 10% per year in recent times (last year 106,000 visitors were counted on the track) and the carpark is now frequently at capacity. This increasing visitation has highlighted safety issues with access to the carpark, as well as the current lack of signage and interpretation information on the trails.

In 2017, following acquisition of an additional 25 hectares of land alongside Poplar Lane, staff and iwi representatives started development of a concept plan for the future of the park. This included the creation of an improved entry or gateway, increased capacity, improved safety, more user-friendly amenities and the provision of interpretation to help park users understand some of the cultural and historic context of the land they are visiting and the practical considerations of wayfinding. This concept plan led to Council allocating $2.4M capital funding to the Pāpāmoa Hills Upgrade Project in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, based on an initial estimate of construction cost from BECA.

1.1 Legislative Framework

Regional Parks are provided for under s139 of the Local Government Act (2002). Pāpāmoa Hills Cultural Heritage Regional Park is at present held in a series of fee simple titles without formal status. The Pāpāmoa Hills Regional Park Management Plan was refreshed in 2020 to reflect the land parcels acquired since 2007.

1.2 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We work cohesively with volunteers and others, to sustainably manage and improve our natural resources.
A Vibrant Region	We work with and connect the right people to create a prosperous region and economy.
The Way We Work	We look to partnerships for best outcomes.

1.2.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

þ Environmental

þ Cultural

þ Social

¨ Economic

The Pāpāmoa Hills Upgrade Project – Te Uku o Takakopiri

Together with representatives from Waitaha, Ngā Potiki, Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti He, staff worked on a project vision which is:

To create a sustainable and rich experience at Te Rae o Pāpāmoa / Pāpāmoa Hills Cultural Heritage Regional Park for our local and visiting communities to enjoy.

The following three key outcomes and objectives were developed, and work to explore and achieve them set in motion within the resources available.

During 2019 and 2020 a number of work streams were progressed to achieve these objectives and the project vision. Key among these is a piece of work involving representatives from Waitaha, Nga Potiki, Ngati Pukenga and Ngati He, Law Creative, Boffa Miskell, WSP and Council staff to identify the best option for the Regional Park’s primary place of arrival, and to create a concept design for it.

Through this work (which included a weighted multi-criteria analysis), a new site approximately 300m away from the quarry entrance was identified as the preferred option for the park’s primary entry point, to complement rather than replace the existing entrance facilities. Figure 1 shows the existing carpark, a potential site for development in the future, and the proposed new carpark and primary entry point to the park. Figure 2 provides an indication of that concept design, which is provided in greater detail in Attachment 1.

Figure 1: Carpark and entry point options at Pāpāmoa Hills Regional Park.

Figure 2: Concept design for the new primary entry to the Regional Park.

Figure 3: Examples from the concept design

Some of the key aspects of the new concept design will be outlined during the presentation of this report, including the approach to telling cultural stories from the park, and how the design work links to them. Staff will also outline some of the more functional ‘wayfinding’ elements, such as those shown below.

Figure 4: Proposed signage and mapping styles for the park’s track network

In addition to proceeding to detailed design of the attached concept plan, staff will explore options to improve the safety of the entrance to the existing carpark and facilities, which are expected to provide ‘overflow’ capacity when the 86 parking spaces in the proposed concept design are full. This is likely to include a realigned driveway to reduce potential conflict with heavy vehicles at the quarry entrance.

3. Considerations

3.1 Risks and Mitigations

Please refer to the risk analysis below.

3.2 Climate Change

3.3 Implications for Māori

The concept outlined in this report has been co-designed in partnership with representatives from Waitaha, Ngā Potiki, Ngāti Pūkenga and Ngāti He, and endorsed by them for presentation to Councillors. The concept co-design attempts to achieve the key project outcome:

Tangata whenua partners are empowered to share their history and are project collaborators (Kaitiakitanga).

3.4 Community Engagement

INFORM

Whakamōhio

To provide affected communities with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives and/or solutions.

3.5 Financial Implications

If the recommendation is adopted by Council, will it result in:

If the answer is ‘no’ to both questions please select the dropdown option 1 and complete appropriately.

There are no material unbudgeted financial implications and this work fits within the allocated budget.

However, should the revised construction cost estimates be higher than the budgeted amount of $2.4M, staff will explore re-design and co-funding options.

3.5.1 Current Budget Implications

	Budget	Actual	Forecast	Variance
Activity	$2.4M Capex	TBC	TBC

4. Next Steps

Next Steps: What next? What resources are needed? Further analysis? Timeframes ahead. Any consultation planned. Remind Council of the process ahead. Next update to Council?

Conclusion: Short concluding remarks. Referring back to recommendations. No new content.

Pending Council endorsement of the concept design, staff will develop the concept into a detailed design with iwi partners and consultants and revise the construction cost estimate. If that revised estimate is within the budget available, then staff will proceed through to procurement and construction.

5. Key Risks

Risk	Mitigation
Estimates of construction cost or tendered prices exceed the capital budget of $2.4M available.	Revise design; seek third party co-funding; explore options to use savings from other projects.
Geotechnical issues associated with ground conditions affecting construction or OSET consenting.	Undertake geotechnical assessment and seek advice from OSET specialist.
Opposition from adjacent landowners, stakeholders or the wider community.	Meet with neighbours to inform them of the plans, and to consult on options to improve the design.
Health and Safety risk of doing nothing due to the quarry traffic interacting with park users entering and exiting.	Realign driveway to existing carpark, and adopt modern and safe traffic design and management practices.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - 2020 11 24 Law Creative - Papamoa Hills Stage Two - v5 Concept Design Spreads ⇩



Report To:	Monitoring and Operations Committee
Meeting Date:	15 December 2020
Report Writer:	Reuben Fraser, Consents Manager and Hamish Dean, Consents Team Leader
Report Authoriser:	Sarah Omundsen, General Manager, Regulatory Services
Purpose:	To inform the committee about a customer service survey and seek support for new guidance material relating to tangata whenua engagement.

Resource Consents Process: Customer Service Deep Dive Insights and Next Steps

Executive Summary

This paper reports on work done during 2020 to better understand the experience applicants and tangata whenua have working with our team and requests support for new guidance material on tangata whenua engagement.

A consultant was engaged to undertake a comprehensive look at the service the Resource Consents team provide to our customers, and their experience of dealing with our team. This work was part of our focus on improving customer service experience. The work involved two stages:

1. Interviews and analysis of the service our regular consultant applicants get from us; and subsequently

2. Interviews and analysis of the experience that iwi and hapū representatives have with the Regional Council consenting process.

The key themes of the findings from both surveys are presented, along with the actions we are taking or have taken to address the issues raised. One of the key themes of the consultant feedback was that tangata whenua engagement is complicated and adds uncertainty to the process. This feedback prompted the survey of tangata whenua representatives.

Recommendations

That the Monitoring and Operations Committee:

1 Receives the report, Resource Consents Process: Customer Service Deep Dive Insights and Next Steps.

2 Supports the rollout of new guidance material specifying timeframes and indicative costs for tangata whenua engagement.

3 Confirms the public be excluded on the grounds set out in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 from consideration of the following report attachments:

(a) Regional Council - Guts (consultants) under Section 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(a) as withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons and that this attachment remain in Public Excluded.

(b) Regional Council - Guts (Tangata Whenua) under Section 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(a) as withholding the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons and that this attachment remain in Public Excluded.

1. Introduction

In March of this year the consultancy firm What Lies Beneath was engaged to undertake a ‘Deep Dive’ into the Resource Consents team’s customer service. The purpose of the project was for us to gain a better understanding of what we are doing well with our customer service and what we can improve. Customer service is a top priority for the organisation: Our goal is to make the resource consent process as easy as possible while striving for positive environmental and community outcomes and maintaining the Regional Council values.

The project was done in two parts. Stage 1 sought feedback from some of the consultants who regularly apply for consents from us on behalf of their clients, while Stage 2 sought feedback from some of the tangata whenua kaitiaki or RMA representatives who provide cultural impact advice to resource consent applicants. Two reports from What Lies Beneath are provided as attachments; one each for the consultant work and the tangata whenua work.

1.1 Consultant Deep Dive

The team from What Lies Beneath interviewed thirteen regular consent applicants. Ten of these were planning consultants who apply for consents on behalf of their clients and the other three were from Tauranga City Council and Fonterra. Each interviewee was asked 12 questions:

1. Tell me briefly about your role in the consents process.

2. What do Regional Council do well?

3. What could they do to improve?

4. What is your experience with the staff members?

5. Do you have any comments on guidance materials, website etc? Anything that can be improved or added?

6. How do Council delays effect you and your clients?

7. What’s your opinion and experience of the fees/fee system?

8. How would you describe the culture? Reputation?

9. Tell me about the Cultural Effects Assessments if you have experience with them?

10. On a scale of 0-10, how likely are you to recommend Regional Council to others?

11. On a scale of 1-5, how do you rate your overall experience with them?

12. Is there anything else I should have asked? Anything that would be helpful for them to hear during the feedback process?

Interviews were conducted as a conversation and not all questions were comprehensively covered with each person. Responses were recorded and What Lies Beneath provided details of what was said, along with insights into the themes of the comments and some strategic thinking around solutions and actions.

One of the major themes of the consultant interviews was the challenges they have with tangata whenua consultation. As a result of their feedback the second stage of the project was implemented.

1.2 Tangata Whenua Deep Dive

The tangata whenua interviews were conducted in the same way as for the consultants. Thirteen people were interviewed, representing 12 iwi or hapū from across the region. Questions asked of tangata whenua representatives were:

1. How would you describe your role in the resource consents process?

2. What are the Regional Council doing well in the consents space?

3. What is the biggest challenge for you/your iwi or hapū in this process?

4. Is there a consultant or business that engages well with your iwi or hapū? Wahat do they do that sets them apart?

5. Can you give me examples of mistakes consultants or developers make when engaging with iwi?

6. Are the iwi and hapū management plans being used by the Regional Council and/or applicants?

7. Are your iwi/hapū representatives being contacted in relation to the applications they want?

8. How do your iwi or hapū resource their own participation in the consents process as part of this? Do you feel that your iwi or hapū are resourced sufficiently to deal with the resource consent process? What about other iwi? If not, what would help?

9. When, regarding, do you contact the regional council? Are you getting what you need from them? How are your interactions with staff?

10. Do you feel that māori values are being provided for in the decisions being made?

11. If you had a magic wand to change one thing in relation to the consent process, what would you do?

12. On a scale of 1 – 5, how do you rate your overall experience with the Regional Council?

13. Is there anything else I should have asked? Is there anything that would be helpful for the Regional Council to hear during this feedback process?

Interviews with tangata whenua representatives were mostly held face-to-face and were generally a lot longer than the consultant ones.

1.3 Alignment with Strategic Framework

A Healthy Environment	We manage our natural resources effectively through regulation, education and action.
Freshwater for Life	We listen to our communities and consider their values and priorities in our regional plans.
Safe and Resilient Communities
A Vibrant Region	We work with and connect the right people to create a prosperous region and economy.
The Way We Work	We continually seek opportunities to innovate and improve.

This work aims to improve how we deliver our work to our community and our relationships with customers and partners.

1.3.1 Community Well-beings Assessment

Dominant Well-Beings Affected

¨ Environmental

Low - Positive

¨ Cultural

Low - Positive

¨ Social

Low - Positive

¨ Economic

Low - Positive

2. Findings from the Consultant Deep Dive

The key themes from the interviews with consultants are summarised below. A number of consultants also raised issues specific to them or particular applications but these have been addressed with them directly and are not covered here.

2.1 Cultural Effects Assessment – The Wild West of the Consenting World

A significant proportion of the feedback received from our consultant respondents related to the difficulties they have with cultural effects assessment. An assessment of cultural effects is required for almost all consent types (apart from where rules do not provide for consideration of cultural effects) and our policy recognises that only tangata whenua can identify the cultural impacts of a particular activity on them and their relationship with the environment.

Resource Consent applicants are advised to contact tangata whenua directly and our team supply contact details so they can do that. Our consultant respondents expressed concern that the cultural effects assessment process was ‘lawless’ and that they often felt out of their depth in dealing with iwi and hapū. For this work we didn’t survey applicants who only apply for resource consents every 10 or 15 years, but from feedback we get from these people through the customer satisfaction survey, we understand many of them to have similar feelings.

Consultants recognised that tangata whenua are often under-resourced but expressed frustration at the often lengthy delays and in our ‘hands-off’ approach. The cost of engagement was not seen as a major issue but the uncertainty associated with the delay could significantly impact a project.

Some consultants expressed frustration that Regional Council staff don’t step in more often and help with the process and there was some concern that some iwi/hapū are acting unprofessionally.

Through this process consultants asked us to provide clear guidance on the cultural effects process, including guidance on timeframes and costs. They also want us to provide more accurate and up-to-date information on who they need to talk to and generally show more leadership in the cultural effects assessment space.

2.2 Responsiveness and Consistency

Several of our consultant respondents were unhappy with our communication with them after applications had been lodged. For example: “Processing communications could improve. Knowing the status would help.” We also received some very good comments about our communication and responsiveness which suggests a level of inconsistency in this area.

Consultants often get pressure on timeframes from their clients and appreciate regular updates so they can keep their clients informed of progress. Responsiveness and good customer service are very important to the team and we will continue to place a high priority on maintaining and improving how we deal with our customers. The Consents team already have a customer service protocol which guides our communication with applicants but at times high workloads get in the way of good service. While this is the exception rather than the norm, we will continue internal training to improve in this area. Other improvements that are being made in this area are discussed in section 5 below.

Some comments were also made about inconsistent processing times, fees and variation in general approach by our team. The fact that we outsource some of our processing work to consultants was suggested as one reason for inconsistencies. Naturally there is variation in how individuals work within the team due to varying experience levels and personality but we have solid systems in place for peer review and signoff, a culture of robust discussion about consenting issues and ongoing training and development which take a lot of potential inconsistency out of the process. However, no two consent applications are the same and even with perfect service and perfect systems in place there will always be variability in the time it takes to process an application and the cost associated with it.

2.3 Pre-application process and further information

We encourage applicants to talk to us before lodging resource consent applications so that we understand what they are proposing to do and they understand what information they need to provide and what the rules are regarding their particular activity. We provide the first hour of advice free but thereafter an applicant pays for the time spent.

Some respondents suggested that our pre-application process needed to be more formal and that sometimes there was not good carry-over between pre-application discussions and the processing of the application. Since receiving this feedback a new pre-application Standard Operating Procedure has been introduced which we expect to address any issues.

Other respondents raised concerns over how quickly we let them know when information is missing in the application and that there are inconsistencies over when we return applications for being incomplete. These timeframes are specified in the RMA: Section 88 allows us 10 working days to check that an application is complete and to return it if it isn’t. It also outlines what has to be included in an application. In many cases applications are checked and, if necessary, returned within one or two days of receiving them and we usually only return applications with significant omissions. If it is only missing something small we generally accept the application and request further information. A very common example of this are applications that come in with incomplete cultural effects assessments.

The consents team has an internal target of ten working days (median) to carry out the initial audit of applications and either return or request further information under Section 92. This time is required because technical reviews of information in applications may be required before that decision is made. As shown below, performance in this area has generally improved over the last 16 months.

Figure 1: Median working days from lodgement date to first request for information (s92) for consents granted.

2.4 Better guidance material

Consultants and other applicants make use of the consenting information we provide on our website but some expressed frustration that some of the material is not up-to-date, things are difficult to find, and that they don’t have access to all of the information they require. Others thought that the information we provide is good and “better than others”.

Our website includes comprehensive information about the consent application process as well as specific application forms and guidance material for each activity type that we consent. Like the rest of the site it can be difficult to navigate but the information is comprehensive. However, we acknowledge that some of the guidance material is slightly outdated and this will be remedied in the New Year.

There are a number of other improvements relating to accessing information which are discussed below, along with improved guidance material relating to tangata whenua engagement.

3. Findings from the Tangata Whenua Deep Dive

The key themes from the tangata whenua deep dive are summarised below. In addition to the responses discussed here there was a lot of comment about issues that are much bigger than can be dealt with through the resource consent process. For example how Regional Council manages water resources, how iwi and hapū are resourced, and the lack of partnership between iwi/hapū and Regional Council.

3.1 Trust and Transparency

The issue of trust, or lack of it, was raised several times. Some respondents were concerned that they are not being engaged on all resource consent applications and expressed a lack of trust that we are keeping them informed.

The assessment of effects for most activities must include an assessment of cultural effects and Regional Council policy recognises that only tangata whenua can identify and evidentially substantiate their relationship and that of their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga. This means that the applicant is expected to talk to tangata whenua in order to do a thorough assessment of cultural effects. The only applications that don’t require a cultural effects assessment are for controlled or restricted discretionary activities where cultural impact is not one of the matters of control; for example dairy effluent or bore consents. The upcoming plan changes as a result of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management are an opportunity for plan provisions to be explicit about when cultural effects assessments are, and are not, required.

Our current advice to applicants is that if they have made a genuine effort to contact the relevant iwi or hapū over a period of three months and cannot get a response, they can then do their best to assess cultural effects based on iwi or hapū management plans, or previous feedback on similar applications. We will then make a decision on whether the application needs to be notified or not.

Our planners check every relevant application and if the applicant has not engaged with the appropriate iwi and hapū the application is generally returned as incomplete.

Our Regulatory Administration team currently send out a weekly email containing a list of consent applications and decisions made, so that tangata whenua representatives can keep track of what is happening. We also send copies of consents and reports to tangata whenua who have been involved in consent processes when decisions are made.

We are currently working on some more refined and specific guidance about the engagement process for applicants and iwi/hapū as well as better access to information. Both of these initiatives are discussed further below.

We strongly believe that building trust relies heavily on good communication. One of our respondents commented that if she picks up the phone and calls us she always gets what she needs. We encourage everyone to give us a call if they are unsure of something or want to talk through a concern. In turn, we will be working on picking up the phone and calling tangata whenua representatives more often and meeting kanohi ki te kanohi where possible too.

3.2 Capacity and Resourcing

Many participants raised the issue of iwi and hapū being under-resourced and unable to meet all of the demands they face. We are very aware of this problem, and there are iwi that have applied for funding to trial models to support capacity.

We support iwi and hapū in charging professional fees for the services they are providing to applicants. We already have guidance on our website which advises applicants that they should expect to pay for cultural effects but this guidance is in the process of being reviewed and is discussed in section 5.1 below.

When writing to thank our respondents for being involved in the interviews we shared an example of what we consider to be best practice for tangata whenua/applicant interaction. Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa (TRONA) have a system in place where they respond quickly to an applicant’s phone call or email and provide a scope, with fee estimate and timeframe. This means that applicants know what to expect in terms of their timing and what they will need to pay, and they know what they will get. It also allows TRONA to programme their work. When TRONA send the document to the applicant, they copy us in, so Council also knows about that engagement.

It was suggested that iwi/hapū representatives should be able to charge Council for the services and Council then passes that on to the applicant through Section 36 charges.

Improvements in how iwi and hapū charge for their services may go some way towards resourcing their day to day operations but there is still significant disparity of base resourcing from iwi to iwi which impacts on tangata whenua ability to engage in resource consent and other RMA and Local Government processes. Some concerted effort by the organisation and tangata whenua is required in order to find a solution to this issue.

Staff consider that rather than Council paying for, and then recovering cultural effects assessments associated with individual applications, work should continue with models currently mooted for trial and explore other solutions to increase tangata whenua capacity. It would be possible to recover some cost associated with this sort of work via section 36 changes^{^[2]} and this is discussed further below. When the possibility of this was raised with Councillors as part of the last long term plan process, Councillors asked for data on how many applications iwi and hapū were being asked to comment on and levels of response. As a result, changes were made to databases and results are provided in section 4.

3.3 Box ticking and working for the applicant

Some iwi and hapū representatives have the perception that we never decline applications, that we are essentially working for the applicant and that getting tangata whenua feedback is just a box ticking exercise. This feedback was disappointing to hear. It is correct that we rarely decline consent applications but this is because the proposals that aren’t consistent with the rules and policies are turned away before they even make an application or are withdrawn once applicants are made to realise they are likely going to need to spend money on further process (notification and hearing) with low chance of success. Usually this happens in the pre-application stage when we identify that a proposal won’t be acceptable. On the occasions where consents have been declined, key reasons have always included cultural effects.

The numbers of applications that have been returned to applicants at the start of the process for being incomplete (often because of a lack of cultural effects assessment) and withdrawn is displayed in Figure 2 below. This is out of around 800 applications each year.

Figure 2: Consent applications returned or withdrawn since 2014

We take feedback from iwi and hapū seriously and are open to implementing suggestions or recommended consent conditions where they relate to the effects of the activity. However in some cases the feedback the applicant gets does not directly relate to the activity being proposed and under the RMA we cannot impose conditions on a consent if those conditions do not directly relate to either an adverse effect of the activity on the environment or an applicable rule or national environmental standard^{^[3]}. For example, conditions relating to the use of herbicide could not be imposed on a consent to take water for orchard irrigation.

We acknowledge that sometimes we grant consents that tangata whenua consider should be declined. In all cases we are guided by the legislation and our planning documents, and make the decision that we think best reflects the direction they provide.

3.4 Staff training and relationships with Regional Council

Several of our respondents suggested that our planners needed more training in Te Ao Māori and some offered to come and talk to the team about iwi and hapū management plans and other cultural matters. This feedback was not unexpected; we have a range of experience with Te Ao Māori within the team and depth of understanding varies significantly. However, organisational initiatives such as He Korowai Matuaranga and the establishment of the Kaiwhakamanawa role within the Organisational Development team are providing opportunities for the team to develop in this area.

In addition we would like to have iwi and hapū representatives talk to the team and we’ll work to make this happen.

4. Tangata Whenua engagement in the consents process

Despite the frustrations of applicants relating to delays and uncertainty and those of tangata whenua relating to resourcing, engagement rates are reasonably high. Of the resource consents approved between July 1^st 2019 and November 20^th 2020, and which required a cultural effects assessment, just over 72% of requests for feedback on an application received a response (Figure 3). In total 573 consent applications were lodged and then approved within that timeframe and 293 (51%) required tangata whenua consultation. The remaining applications were for activities that do not require consultation such as bores (30%), Dairy Discharges (12%) and On Site Effluent Treatment (4%).

Figure 3: Percentage of approaches to iwi or hapū that have received responses. Data covers the period July 1^st 2019 to 20^th November 2020 (requests for feedback made during that time).

Of those responses received 44% were in support of the application, 13% approved in part and just 5% opposed an application outright (Figure 4). Another 25% of responses deferred to another iwi or hapū.

Figure 4: Types of responses received from tangata whenua to applications. Data relates to the period July 1^st 2019 to November 20^th 2020

The number of applications sent to each iwi and hapū reflects resource use patterns across the region with Tauranga Moana, Whakatāne/Rangitaiki, and Te Arawa iwi and hapū coming under the most pressure from applicants (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Number of applications received for comment by each iwi or hapu between July 1^st 2019 and November 20^th 2020. Only iwi and hapu who received more than 5 applications are included in the chart.

5. Where to from here?

As a result of the feedback received through this process we are implementing three projects to improve the experience of customers and tangata whenua representatives.

5.1 Improved guidance on iwi/hapū engagement

It is clear from the feedback we have received that the iwi/hapū engagement process for resource consent applications needs to be reviewed. The current system is a significant source of uncertainty and frustration for applicants and tangata whenua are not satisfied with the process either.

We have done some initial work on new guidance material to help both applicants and tangata whenua through the process (Figure 6) although note that this is only a draft at present. We request the committee’s support to implement these new guidelines.

Key improvements from the current system are:

5.1.1 Improved guidance on timeframe

Currently we advise applicants that they should allow iwi/hapū up to three months to respond. The new guidance sets the expectation that iwi/hapū respond within 20 working days to indicate that they would like to comment on the application, and ideally provide a proposal containing costs and a timeline. This will at least give the applicant some certainty over their timeframes as well as allowing tangata whenua representatives to plan their work more easily. Note that best practice is for this engagement to occur prior to applications being lodged, so that proposals are shaped by engagement and feedback received.

5.1.2 Sets expectations for a professional engagement

While the current guidance does talk about the professional nature of the transaction we plan to be more explicit about costs and timelines in the new guidance.

Our intention is to specify a rate of $160/hr as an approximate hourly rate that applicants can expect to pay for cultural effects assessment. This charge-out rate is based on the one set through a public process for our own Consents Planners^{^[4]}. Council has previously paid tangata whenua representatives for consultation work at varying rates, depending on the work involved. For example, work relating to the Kaituna rediversion has ranged from <$100/hr for cultural monitoring through to $200/hr for cultural impact assessment work from highly skilled and experienced individuals. Tauranga City Council allow $170 for sitting on governance groups, forums and committees, and $87.50/hr for cultural impact assessment^{^[5]}.

5.1.3 Sets expectations for applicants to do their homework

We expect that applicants have read the relevant iwi/hapū management plans and have done a draft assessment of cultural effects before they approach tangata whenua. This will reduce the workload for iwi/hapū representatives who in some cases may be able to say “yes, you have that correct, we have no further comment”.

5.1.4 Clarifies what to do if no feedback/response is received

This would be to provide an assessment based on any relevant iwi/hapū management plans and any comments received on previous applications and ask Council to progress the application (make a notification decision).

We are limited in what we can achieve through guidance material and although policy directs applicants to engage with tangata whenua we cannot dictate process or cost to iwi or hapū.

5.2 Improved access to information

We are currently planning a new public portal which will allow improved access to consent information. We are working with business analysts to define the requirements of the portal and decide on the most appropriate platform to use. Our existing Accela, ZenDesk and geospatial platforms may all be able to deliver what we need but we are looking into which system is the most cost-effective to develop. The portal will be funded from existing budgets.

Our aim is to provide a portal which will allow members of the public to search resource consents using spatial and non-spatial queries and export the data. They will also be able to access consent documents (the application, officer’s report, maps and the consent conditions) directly from the portal, although our obligations under the new Privacy Act 2020 may restrict what can be made available. For tangata whenua this will provide additional transparency because they will be able to search all consents or consent applications for their rohe or a particular catchment for example, and view all of the detail of any particular consent they are interested in.

The portal will allow consultants to search particular activity types so they can view recent decisions and conditions, and find consents that are approaching their expiry date. It will also allow members of the public to look into projects that interest them, whether that is what the neighbour is doing over the fence, or a public project being undertaken by a local authority.

We aim to select a platform for the portal before Christmas and have the system up and running in the first quarter of 2021.

To improve our service to applicants we also aim to introduce an applicant and consent-holder portal which would require user sign-in but would allow access to information on the current status of an application, how much time has been spent on it and the cost to date. For existing consent holders it could allow easy access to their own consent documents and financial statements. This part of the system is likely to be introduced later depending on cost and organisational priorities.

Figure 6: Draft guidance for tangata whenua engagement on resource consent applications

5.3 Resourcing of iwi and hapū

Under-resourcing of iwi and hapū in the Bay of Plenty is a significant issue and is restricting tangata whenua involvement in the resource management system. Often, the people who are trying to engage with applicants about regional consents are also dealing with consents for multiple Territorial Authorities, engaging in the planning processes for multiple councils, engaging with community and industry groups and sitting on various forums. In many cases tangata whenua representatives work part time or even volunteer, and they don’t have ready access to the data and information technology that we take for granted at Regional Council. Provisions such as those relating to tangata whenua involvement in the new NPS-FM 2020 will put more pressure on iwi and hapū who are already stretched thin.

Making it clear to applicants that they should expect to pay for the services of iwi and hapū during the engagement process, as discussed in Section 5.1.2, may help to some extent but is unlikely to completely alleviate the problem.

Work is underway through Te Hononga to initiate targeted and flexible engagement with tangata whenua for the NPS-FM and RNRP plan change programme. Te Hononga aims for partnership relationships with iwi and a win-win engagement approach. The Taiao Hubs approach in particular has the potential to also provide significant benefit to the consenting process and we will work with the Water and Māori Policy teams to do what we can to ensure that any such hubs are structured in such a way that maximises that benefit.

We note that funding for the Te Hononga programme has been allocated for the 2020/21 year and that funding for the remaining years of the programme has been included in the draft LTP. An option that Council could consider to help fund the Taiao Hub model to enable them to be used for resource consent engagement is to use RMA Section 36 charges. This could involve charging a set fee for applications for which tangata whenua consultation is required and passing this on to the relevant tangata whenua hub. Work would need to be done on the cost and viability of such an approach, should Council request it.

One of the frustrations we hear from applicants is the number of groups they need to speak to in order to fully understand cultural effects. For example, recent feedback to Councillors from Rotorua residents expressed frustration at having to contact six iwi or hapū groups for their domestic geothermal take. Offering bulk funding to Taiao Hubs could have the additional benefit of encouraging iwi and hapū to form collectives and thus reduce the number of groups that applicants need to contact.

6. Considerations

6.1 Risks and Mitigations

There is some risk that introducing new guidelines for iwi and hapū engagement, and providing indicative costs, will impact on our relationship with some hapū and iwi because they might perceive that we are dictating how they engage with applicants and that is not strictly our role. However, we plan to write to all iwi and hapū groups in the region to explain the changes and why we are changing.

There is also a risk that by providing more specific guidance and costs we may set expectations for how iwi engage with other parts of the organisation.

6.2 Climate Change

The matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature and there is no need to consider climate change impacts.

6.3 Implications for Māori

The Tangata Whenua Deep Dive work was done with the express purpose of improving the consenting experience for iwi and hapū. As already discussed some of the changes may not appeal to some iwi and hapū groups but we believe the changes proposed will improve the process and enable tangata whenua to engage more easily in the resource consenting process.

6.4 Community

INVOLVE

Whakaura

To work directly with affected communities throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are consistently understood and fully considered in Council’s decision making.

6.5 Financial Implications

There are no financial implications from this report.

7. Next Steps

Once the guidelines have been released. Staff will report back to this Committee with feedback received from applicants and tangata whenua.

Attachments

Attachment 1 - Regional Council - Guts (consultants) (Public Excluded) ⇩

Attachment 2 - Regional Council - Guts (Tangata Whenua) (Public Excluded) ⇩

[2] s36AAA(2) RMA: The sole purpose of a charge is to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the local authority in respect of the activity to which the charge relates.

[4] Resource Management Act and Building Act Charges Policy 2019/20, Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

[5] 2020 Payment Guidance for Tanagata Whenua engagement, Tauranga City Council.

Chairperson	Cr Kevin Winters
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Norm Bruning
Members	All Councillors
Quorum	Seven members, consisting of half the number of members
Meeting frequency	Quarterly