before the board of inquiry in the matter …2.3 the climate is mild and the catchment sits in a...

Sainsbury Logan & Williams Ref: Lara J Blomfield Solicitors Fax: 06-835 6746 Cnr Tennyson Street and Cathedral Lane Phone: 06-835 3069 PO Box 41 Napier

BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY

IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF Iain Donald MAXWELL

CONTENTS

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................... 3 3. Catchment description .............................................................................................. 5 4. Summary of the Tukituki science programme ......................................................... 11 5. Summary of the Tukituki Catchment modelling programme .................................... 17 6. Land use intensification .......................................................................................... 18 7. Flow optimisation .................................................................................................... 22 8. Response to submitter points regarding outstanding waterbodies .......................... 24 9. Water Management zones...................................................................................... 26 10. National Objectives Framework .............................................................................. 28 11. Policy TT15 ............................................................................................................ 29 12. Comments on submissions to POL TT15 ............................................................... 32 13. Response to submitter concerns about conflicts and capability .............................. 39

EXHIBITS

IDM 1: Map of the losing and gaining reaches in the Tukituki Catchment

IDM 2: Map of the mean annual rainfall in the Tukituki Catchment

IDM 3: Map of the groundwater model boundaries and groundwater monitoring sites

IDM 4: Map showing key water quality monitoring sites in the Tukituki Catchment

IDM 5: Map showing location of water take consents in the Tukituki Catchment

IDM 6: Resource consents DP030231Wa, DP030859Aa, DP030232Wa and DP 030860Aa granted to the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

IDM 7: Water quality monitoring results for the Waipawa waste water treatment plant effluent

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 My name is Iain Donald Maxwell.

1.2 I hold a Bachelor of Science (Zoology) and a Bachelor of Science with

Honours (First Class – Ecology) from Massey University (1990 and 1992

respectively).

1.3 I have been working for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) for 2

years. I am currently the Group Manager of the Resource Management

Group. The vast majority of the science programme that has supported the

development of Proposed Regional Plan Change 6 (Change 6) policy and the

Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) proposal has either been

delivered by scientists within my group or by consultant scientists who have

been managed from within my group.

1.4 In addition to leading the science team for HBRC, I manage the group that has

responsibilities for resource consenting functions, law enforcement functions

and navigation safety. I make specific note here that although staff in my

group were responsible for the development of the section 149G

completeness report for this process, I had no involvement in the preparation

of that report beyond the negotiation of contractual arrangements with the

Environmental Protection Authority.

1.5 I am very familiar with water management throughout New Zealand and the

Tukituki Catchment in particular through my extensive career in this region

and beyond over the past 21 years.

1.6 I currently sit as a Regional Council representative on the reference group for

the development of the National Objectives Framework (NOF). This group

has informed the development of that framework and made recommendations

to Ministers that have assisted in the development of the NOF.

1.7 Prior to my current role with HBRC I held the position of Senior Freshwater

Ecologist with the Cawthron Institute from 2009-2011.

1.8 Before that I was Regional Manager of the Hawke’s Bay Region of Fish and

Game New Zealand from 2007-2009. I was the Senior Fish and Game Officer

for the Hawke’s Bay Region of Fish and Game New Zealand from 1999-2007.

I was a Fish and Game Officer for the Eastern Region of Fish and Game New

Zealand from 1997-1999.

1.9 I began my career with the Department of Conservation in the Research and

Monitoring team of the Taupo Fishery as a Conservation Officer from 1992-

1997.

1.10 I am a member of the Resource Management Law Association, the New

Zealand Freshwater Sciences Society, the New Zealand Association of

Resource Management, the Hawke’s Bay Branch of the Royal Society and the

Society of Local Government Managers.

Purpose and scope of evidence

1.11 My evidence is mainly intended to provide an organisational perspective and

rationale for many of the science investigations that have informed the

development of Change 6 and the RWSS.

1.12 Specifically, in my evidence I address the following matters:

(a) A brief overview of the Tukituki Catchment’s climate, water quantity,

current water quality and consented activities related to land and

water.

(b) A high level overview of the research and investigations that have

informed the development of both Change 6 and the RWSS.

(c) A specific outline of the modelling work that has informed both Change

6 and the RWSS.

(d) Consideration of land use intensification associated with the RWSS

and the development of the Tukituki River Model (TRIM).

(e) The development of the flow optimisation package that is associated

with the RWSS.

(f) My involvement in the National Objectives Framework reference group.

(g) The development of policy TT15 related to water take metering and

telemetry.

(h) Respond to matters raised in submissions in relation to outstanding

waterbodies, water management zones and concerns about conflict

and effective regulation and management of water.

1.13 Given my senior management role within Council my evidence does not

contain a lot in the way of technical information or data as this is covered by

the expert witness evidence that will follow. In the course of my evidence I will

identify which expert will provide the more substantive detail.

Expert Code of Conduct

1.14 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in section 5 of the

Environment Court’s Practice Note (2011). In so far as I express expert

opinions, I agree to comply with that Code of Conduct. In particular, except

where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person

as the basis for any expert opinion I have formed, my evidence in this

statement giving my expert opinion is within my area of expertise. I have not

omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from

the opinions which I express.

2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

2.1 My overall conclusions in relation to the matters covered by my evidence are

as follows.

Catchment description

2.2 The Tukituki is the third largest catchment in the region. It has a large gravel

filled basin where it leaves the Ruahine Ranges and eventually forms a single

channel that meanders to the sea near Haumoana, some 105km from its

source.

2.3 The climate is mild and the catchment sits in a rain shadow. This creates

higher rainfall at the head of the catchment than across the Ruataniwha Basin

or near the coast. Droughts in the catchment are common.

2.4 The gravel filled Ruataniwha Basin is complex and contains a significant

groundwater resource. A smaller groundwater resource sits in the Papanui

Catchment. Near the coast surface waters contribute to the Heretaunga

groundwater system.

2.5 Extended periods of low flow are common in this catchment.

2.6 Groundwater quality is generally very good and is generally suitable for

potable water. Nitrate-nitrogen levels are increasing with some isolated areas

where Maximum Allowable Values for drinking water are exceeded.

2.7 There are 181 consented ground and surface water takes from the catchment.

Summary of the science

2.8 Water quality and quantity in the catchment have been the primary focus for

technical investigations spanning the past decade. Flow modelling,

groundwater modelling and nutrient investigations have been completed.

2.9 The key outcomes from the science have been robust instream habitat

assessments, an understanding of the drivers of periphyton and New Zealand

specific nitrate toxicity guidelines.

Summary of the modelling and Land Use Intensification investigations

2.10 A steady state and then transient groundwater model has been developed for

the Ruataniwha Basin. This was then coupled to a surface water model to

describe the effects of groundwater use on surface water flows. The model

was then further refined to model nitrate-nitrogen movement into groundwater.

2.11 A collaborative programme involving HBRC, National Institute of Water and

Atmosphere (NIWA), Cawthron Institute, and Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council (CHBDC) saw the development of a bio-geo-chemical model to model

the effect of land use on water quality in the Tukituki Catchment.

2.12 Around 2008 HBRC began investigating options for water storage in the

catchment. As part of the pre-feasibility and then full feasibility investigations

for this the bio-geo-chemical model described above was expanded and

developed to model the effects of the scheme operation on water quality.

Flow optimisation

2.13 During the development of the storage proposal for Ruataniwha provision was

made to provide additional flow (flushing flows) during the summer low flow

period to aid in the control of periphyton. This is a significant benefit that only

storage of a sufficient scale can bring.

National Objectives Framework

2.14 I sit on the National Objectives Framework (NOF) reference panel and

consider Change 6 to be consistent with the thinking and direction of the NOF.

Policy TT15

2.15 Capturing good quality water use data is critical to good resource

management outcomes. TT15 will, in my opinion, result in the use of smart

technology to capture good quality water use data and reduce costs for

consent holders in the long term.

Response to submissions

2.16 I do not recommend any amendments in response to the matters raised by

submitters in relation to:

(a) Outstanding waterbodies

(b) Water Management Zones

(c) Conflicts or capability to deliver effective regulation

2.17 I make recommendations for change in response to matters raised by

submitters regarding Policy TT15.

3. CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION

3.1 I will summarise the following catchment features:

(a) Geology and climate

(b) Surface and groundwater quantity

(c) Surface and groundwater quality

(d) Consented activity with a focus on water related consents.

Introduction

3.2 The Tukituki River flows into Hawke Bay, south of Napier and Hastings. The

map Ms Codlin produces as Exhibit HBC 1 shows the catchment location and

key landmarks; I will refer to that map during my evidence.

Geology

3.3 The Tukituki Catchment is located in central Hawke’s Bay, extending from the

main divide of the Ruahine Ranges to the Pacific Ocean and covering

approximately 2,500 km2. It is the third largest watershed in the Hawke’s Bay

Region. The catchment has varied topography, with about half of the land

surface having a slope that is moderate to very steep and a quarter with a flat

or gently undulating slope.

3.4 The Ruahine Ranges are the source of much of the river’s flow and gravel bed

load. The drier Ruataniwha Plains lie at the base of the ranges, having formed

from sediment that has eroded from the ranges. The Waipawa, Makaretu and

upper Tukituki Rivers lose water as they traverse the plains because the

channels are perched on permeable gravels deposited by the rivers (Exhibit

IDM 1). The water that is lost to groundwater subsequently re-emerges,

together with direct rainfall recharge, in a number of spring-fed streams that

start on the Ruataniwha Plains (e.g. Kahahakuri Stream). Mr Waldron will

further discuss these losing and gaining areas.

3.5 East of the Waipawa township, at the downstream edge of the Ruataniwha

Plains, both gaining and losing tributaries come together to form the mainstem

of the Tukituki River. The Tukituki River then flows through a valley bounded

by soft sedimentary rock where inflowing tributaries have more variable flows

and less groundwater contribution. The Tukituki then enters the sea near

Haumoana some 105 kilometres from the Ruahine Ranges.

Climate

3.6 The Hawke’s Bay Region experiences a predominantly mild climate, buffered

by sea temperatures. Snowmelt is therefore a minor contributor to the flow of

most rivers. Hawke’s Bay is generally drier than most other regions of New

Zealand, lying in the rain shadow of the mountain ranges that intercept

moisture from the prevailing westerly winds. The predominant westerly

airflows experienced in the North Island often bring dry settled weather to

Hawke’s Bay.

3.7 Rainfall in the Tukituki Catchment exemplifies this pattern (see Exhibit IDM2),

with higher rainfall from westerly systems intercepted by the Ruahine Ranges

(average rainfall greater than 2,000 mm/yr). There is typically less rainfall (less

than 1,000 mm/yr) to the east at lower elevations, but coastal hills that are

more exposed to easterly weather systems can receive more rain (e.g.

average rainfall greater than 1,500 mm/yr on Kahuranaki).

3.8 Droughts are common and can be prolonged over the summer months. The

most recent example of this is the 2012-2013 drought which, as noted by Mr

Barrett, HBRC’s Climate Scientist has reported as being approximately a 1 in

35 year event. Dr Renwick discusses in his evidence the likelihood that

droughts will become more prevalent and severe over time due to climate

change effects, as part of a broader outline of climate change.

SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

3.9 The evidence of Dr Baalousha covers the detailed technical elements of the

groundwater resources of the Tukituki Catchment and Mr Leong will address

matters relating to surface water. Mr Waldron addresses the impacts of

groundwater and surface water abstraction on river flows and the

methodology for setting minimum flows.

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

Hydrogeology of the Ruataniwha Basin

3.10 The Ruataniwha Basin is geologically complex. The groundwater resource is

heterogeneous and forms a multi-layered aquifer system. The upper layer

which is typically less than 40 metres deep is generally unconfined, has more

permeable and less consolidated gravels and contains the majority of wells

within the basin. Deeper aquifers are typically confined but all the aquifers

within the different layers are hydraulically connected.

3.11 The thickness of each aquifer increases gradually from the edge of the basin

toward the centre and they collectively reach a thickness of about 200 metres

in the middle of the basin.

3.12 Groundwater movement within the basin is generally from west to east almost

parallel to the main rivers. Along the western boundary of the Ruataniwha

Basin, groundwater velocities are relatively slow, reflecting the less permeable

geology, but they increase towards the east, peaking through the Waipawa

and Tukituki Rivers, near the exit points of the basin.

3.13 Dr Baalousha has developed a Transient Groundwater Model for the

Ruataniwha Basin. A map of the area the model covers is shown in Exhibit

IDM 3. Dr Baalousha will address the detail of his model in his evidence.

Hydrogeology of the Papanui Basin

3.14 In the Papanui Catchment, the main aquifer system is the alluvial deposits

along the Old Waipawa River bed1 and Papanui Stream. Less productive

aquifers are found near Otane and along the edge of the limestone hills at the

northern end of the catchment. The general flow of groundwater in this area is

not exactly understood but is thought to move with the topographical gradient

from southwest to northeast along the old Waipawa River bed. The Papanui

groundwater resource is relatively small compared with other groundwater

resources within the region and information about it is limited. Dr Baalousha

will discuss the Papanui Basin.

Hydrogeology of the Lower Tukituki Basin

3.15 At the lower end of the catchment, the Tukituki River intersects with the

Heretaunga Plains and contributes or flows into the lower Tukituki aquifer

which overlies and merges with the main Heretaunga Plains aquifers.

Groundwater levels and aquifer testing suggest the two aquifer systems are

hydraulically connected. Pumping from either aquifer system is therefore likely

to affect the other. For this reason, abstractions from both aquifer systems

need to be managed together. The Tukituki aquifer is therefore managed as

part of the greater Heretaunga Plains aquifer system and not as a separate

groundwater resource of the Tukituki River Catchment.

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

3.16 The following table, summarising data from HBRC and NIWA records,

provides a summary of the instantaneous flow statistics from three key

hydrometric sites. The locations of the hydrometric flow recording sites is

shown in Exhibit HBC 2. Mr Leong will provide further detail on this in his

evidence. When interpreting the table it should be noted that:

(a) Median flow is the flow equalled or exceeded 50% of the time over the

period of record. 1 Formerly, the Waipawa River flowed down the valley now occupied by the Papanui Stream and joined the Tukituki at what is now its confluence with the Papanui Stream. The Waipawa River was diverted in the 1880’s leaving a section of dry river bed before it meets the headwaters of the Papanui Stream.

(b) Mean flow is the arithmetic average of all measured flows over the

period of record.

(c) Q99 is the flow that is equalled or exceeded 99% of the time over the

period of record. The Q99 is used as a descriptor of a very low flow in

a river.

(d) MALF (mean annual low flow) is the average of the lowest flow

recorded/measured in each year of the record. MALF is calculated as a

7-day moving average over the hydrological year (July-June) excluding

years with gaps in the record during which the annual minimum may

have occurred.

Tukituki

River Red Bridge

Tukituki River Tapairu Rd

Waipawa River RDS

Makaroro River2 Burnt Bridge

Papanui Stream Middle Road

Catchment area (km2)1

2,380 756 680 122 58.4

Median flow (l/s)

20640 8915 8455 3680 315

Mean flow (l/s)

43243 15096 14638 6661 1161

Mean annual low flow (l/s)

5320 2199 2670 1394 63

Q99 (l/s) 3574 1220 1866 Not available Not available Record period: begin

1968 1987 1988 1968 1968

Record period: end

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

Notes: 1 These catchment areas are as reported in the NIWA site index. 2 Synthetic records - uses the extended flow record (1972–2010).

SURFACE WATER QUALITY

3.17 Water quality in the Tukituki Catchment is monitored at 222 sites on a monthly

basis across the catchment as shown in Exhibit IDM 4. Data is collected by

HBRC and NIWA staff. In terms of nutrients, water quality in the catchment

declines from upstream to downstream. Prolonged periods of low flow in

summer combined with high temperatures and high instream nutrient

concentrations, typically create nuisance periphyton blooms. Monitoring of 2 This figure being a combination of 12 sites run annually and 10 sites run for a year every five years.

faecal indicator bacteria show levels generally within guidelines across the

entire catchment. A detailed assessment of the catchment’s water quality is in

the Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Effects3. The evidence of Dr Uytendaal

considers some of the current water quality parameters and compares them to

the Change 6 limits.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

3.18 Groundwater quality is monitored from 12 sites across the Ruataniwha Basin;

these are shown on Exhibit IDM 3. Groundwater in the Ruataniwha Basin is

generally suitable for potable use, although elevated iron and manganese

concentrations limit suitability for potable use in a number of bores.

3.19 The table below summarises the temporal trends for nutrients and major ion

chemistry for the monitoring sites in the Ruataniwha Basin. The data indicates

few increasing trends in most water quality variables at most sites with the

exception of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and sulphate (SO4).

Environmentally meaningful

trend

Proportion of sites by variable where trend occurs (%)

Cl Na Ca Mg NO3-N SO4 DRP Mn Fe

Increasing 8 0 8 8 25 42 8 17 0

Decreasing 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 17 50

No trend 84 100 84 84 75 56 92 66 50

3.20 NO3-N is increasing due to past land use intensification. Results obtained

from two intensive surveys of NO3-N concentrations (2008 and 2012) indicate

that NO3-N concentrations are relatively elevated in shallow groundwater.

Although the concentrations of NO3-N were generally below the Maximum

Allowable Values (MAVs) specified in the New Zealand Drinking Water

Standards, the MAV for NO3-N concentrations was exceeded at three sites.

These results indicate localised rather than basin-wide elevated nitrate

concentrations.

3.21 The increase in sulphate (SO4) concentrations also arises from past land use

intensification and the use of superphosphate fertilizers as they contain

elemental sulphur that is oxidised and forms sulphate. The evidence of Dr

Baalousha will consider groundwater quality trends in more detail.

3 RWSS, Folder 5, Tab A1, pages 20-32.

CONSENTED WATER TAKES

3.22 Exhibit IDM 5 shows the location of consented water takes within the

catchment.

3.23 There are a number of permitted takes for stock and domestic water across

the catchment. These are discussed by Mr Barrett in his evidence.

3.24 Excluding high flow harvesting takes there are 92 consented takes for surface

water with a combined maximum instantaneous rate of 2,729 L/s.

3.25 There are 83 consented takes for groundwater from the three proposed

groundwater allocation zones (see Exhibit HBC 3 for these zones). The

current weekly allocation from these zones is 1,737,228 million m3 and a

combined maximum instantaneous rate of take of 3,877 l/s.

3.26 Mr Barrett will address the detail of the consented takes including an

explanation of how the proposed allocation framework was derived.

4. SUMMARY OF THE TUKITUKI SCIENCE PROGRAMME

4.1 Public statements made by submitters and other commentators outside the

submission process4 have cast aspersions on the quality of the science

underpinning Change 6 and RWSS, and impugned the professional integrity

of some of the scientists who have contributed to the process. The evidence

called for the applicants will explain the details of the investigations and the

research that has been undertaken. Key elements have been the subject of

rigorous peer review processes to check and cross check the quality of the

work. In my opinion this catchment is now one of the most understood in the

country. Certainly in discussing the work we have completed in this

catchment with my peers throughout the country they are staggered by what

we know about this catchment and the investment in investigations and

research that has delivered it. I have complete confidence in the

investigations and research and the people and agencies that have provided

it.

4 January 2013 “The technical work done to date is shallow at best” Letter From Peter McIntosh Regional Manager Fish and Game to HBRIC June 2013 "There's a whole bunch of irrigation schemes going on or planned around the country and the only way they can make that feasible was to fiddle with the science” Mike Joy Massey University http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8841042/Scientists-findings-shaped-by-bosses July 2013 “Flawed science which would turn the river into a sewer” Corina Jordan – Fish and Game New Zealand http://www.stuff.co.nz/hawkes-bay-sun/news/8983966/Fish-Game-sees-red-on-dam-plans

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8841042/Scientists-findings-shaped-by-bosses

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/8841042/Scientists-findings-shaped-by-bosses

http://www.stuff.co.nz/hawkes-bay-sun/news/8983966/Fish-Game-sees-red-on-dam-plans

4.2 Ms Codlin has described the journey that brought us to this point on Change

6. In parallel with community dialogue about water management, the science

programme evolved to inform the discussion and debate, to clarify issues and

to fill gaps in our understanding.

4.3 As explained by Ms Codlin, a key step in this evolutionary process was

notification of HBRC’s second generation Regional Plan in 2000. As a result

of the continuing debate around that planning process and a large number of

consent replacements for water takes, HBRC has undertaken a range of

technical investigations or commissioned research relating to the water

resources of the Tukituki River catchment and particularly the Ruataniwha

groundwater system.

4.4 In the stakeholder process Ms Codlin describes, successive reference and

stakeholder groups consistently raised issues of water quality and quantity as

key issues for the catchment. The consistent themes from the community

were that existing minimum flows were set too low and nuisance algal blooms

(periphyton) were occurring in the river during the key low flow periods.

Surface and groundwater modelling

4.5 The catchment’s hydrometric monitoring network has been operating in the

key locations since 1987 (some NIWA data is available back to 1968 at

several sites including Red Bridge). Data for the key sites have been audited

to ensure appropriate quality data were available for modelling and some

additional sites had synthetic records developed. Mr Leong will discuss the

reliability of the hydrometric record including the synthetic records.

4.6 A key matter of concern for agencies such as Hawke's Bay Fish & Game

(HBF&G) during the development of the Regional Resource Management

Plan (RRMP) was the methodology used to determine minimum flows in the

region’s rivers. A side agreement with HBF&G saw Environment Court

appeals on this issue resolved to allow the current RRMP to be made

operative in 2006. As part of that agreement, HBRC, Cawthron and HBF&G

agreed to collaborate in research funded by the then Foundation of Research

Science and Technology to investigate the habitat requirements of New

Zealand rainbow trout. These investigations occurred in Hawke’s Bay and

resulted in the development of new habitat suitability curves that have formed

the basis for the modelling done to determine appropriate minimum flows for

the Tukituki Catchment.

4.7 In order to review the minimum flows, instream habitat surveys undertaken in

2004, 2005 and 2007 were used and remodelled against new habitat

suitability curves to provide updated habitat/flow predictions for trout. This

work was completed in 2009 and revised in 2011 using newly audited river

flow data. The evidence of Dr Hayes will discuss the habitat surveys, and the

appropriateness of the resulting minimum flows.

4.8 Over the period 2008 to 2009, Dr Baalousha began work on a steady state

groundwater model for the Ruataniwha Basin. Over the period 2009 to 2011,

the results from that model were used to develop a transient groundwater

model for the Ruataniwha Basin. This is addressed in the evidence of Dr

Baalousha.

4.9 The transient model was then coupled with the recently audited surface water

flow record to develop a coupled model that describes the effect of

groundwater takes on surface water flows and in particular, using the recently

remodelled instream habitat surveys, informs the effect of groundwater

abstractions on instream habitat. The evidence of Mr Leong, Mr Waldron, and

Dr Hayes, addresses this.

4.10 The transient groundwater model was further refined in 2012 with the addition

of stable isotope (tritium) investigations and particle tracking work undertaken

by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS). This refinement

assisted in defining ground and surface water management zones and

modelling the fate of nutrients (in particular NO3-N) lost from the land. This is

addressed in the evidence of Dr Baalousha.

Monitoring

4.11 Surface water quality monitoring began on a monthly basis in 20045, and has

continued to date, reflecting the fact that understanding water quality state and

trends at a fine scale was going to be required for upcoming policy

development. The state of water quality in the catchment will be explained in

the evidence of Dr Uytendaal and has been comprehensively reported6.

4.12 I have read the evidence of Drs Hayes, Cornelisen, Uytendaal and Ausseil

with specific reference to the recommended monitoring programmes. HBRC

has a statutory obligation to monitor the effectiveness of its policy approach.

5 It was previously monitored every three months 6 Change 6, Folder 4, Tab 1

HBRC currently does conduct monitoring as outlined throughout my evidence

and ensures that appropriate resources to do this are provided for through the

development of its Long Term Plan (LTP). Once Change 6 has been made

operative and the policy confirmed, appropriate monitoring will be developed

and resourced through the LTP process. The development of the LTP is a

public process and is usefully shaped through the contribution of submissions.

Municipal wastewater discharges

4.13 The initial water quality data analysis undertaken by Dr Ausseil in 20087

indicated that phosphorus was the priority nutrient for management of

periphyton growth in the catchment. Phosphorus is considered the key

limiting nutrient and this limitation was extensively explored during hearings

for replacement consents for municipal waste water discharges at Waipukurau

and Waipawa. The replacement consents' conditions specifically control the

phosphorus load coming from these discharges. Specifically the consents

(Exhibit IDM 6) control the combined total daily volume of discharged effluent

and require that the concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP8) in

the effluent shall not exceed 0.25mg/L for more than 50% of the time, nor shall

it exceed 0.5mg/L for more than 10% of the time. The consent conditions will

have a significant effect on the annual load of SRP into the Waipawa and

Tukituki Rivers from these discharges. Dr Ausseil will address this matter in

more detail.

4.14 To achieve the 2014 discharge standards Central Hawke’s Bay District

Council (CHBDC) have approved the construction of two new treatment

systems at Waipawa and Waipukurau. The system at Waipawa has been in

operation now for about three months and uses floating wetland treatment

coupled with mechanical dosing for SRP, filtration for solids and UV treatment

for pathogens. I have obtained copies of the effluent quality monitoring post

the new scheme commissioning (Exhibit IDM 7) and this shows that the

dosing to remove SRP is achieving much higher results than the consent

conditions require. Based on these results, a recent inspection I had of a

similar plant in Hunterville and discussions with that plant’s operators I believe

the effluent discharge from the new Waipawa and Waipukurau systems will

meet or exceed the SRP concentrations required by 2014.

7 Ausseil, O A 2008 Water quality in the Tukituki Catchment – State, Trends and contaminant loads. Report prepared for HBRC, Aquanet Consulting 51p. 8 SRP is the same as Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus (DRP)

Nutrient investigations

4.15 In 2008 through to 2012 detailed nutrient investigations were undertaken to

better understand the spatial variability in phosphorus limitation across the

catchment, including detailed nutrient diffusing substrate investigations. The

evidence of Dr Uytendaal will address this.

4.16 The understanding of phosphorus limitation, associated with the

impracticalities of reducing nitrogen to concentrations where it may make a

meaningful difference to periphyton, indicated that reducing instream

phosphorus levels was the most effective strategy to limit periphyton. The

evidence of Drs Wilcock and Ausseil deals with these aspects in some detail.

However, the effects of nitrogen were not ignored and were investigated

further.

4.17 The critical nitrogen species of interest was NO3-N. NO3-N in high levels can

affect the metabolism of some species. Early investigations by NIWA

commissioned by Environment Canterbury indicated that some species were

more sensitive than others. Unfortunately the ECan/NIWA investigations did

not have information specifically about New Zealand native species. The

evidence of Dr Hickey describes this work.

4.18 Using the known values in the catchment (addressed in the evidence of Mr

Sharp) HBRC commissioned NIWA to research relevant nitrate limits for NZ

native species, in particular juvenile and sub-adult Inanga (Galaxias

maculatus) as an inhabitant of the lower part of the catchment, the ubiquitous

mayfly Deleatidium sp that is an important food species for many drift feeding

fish and wading birds, and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) juveniles and

ova that form part of the nationally significant Tukituki River fishery. From this

research a nitrate toxicity risk management framework was developed. This

will be addressed in the evidence of Dr Hickey.

Expert panel workshops

4.19 As part of the broader consideration of water quality, I convened a panel of

experts to consider the nutrient management approach that my team had

developed for managing water quality in this catchment. In particular I wanted

the panel to test the validity of a single nutrient management approach. The

outcome of this expert panel discussion will be presented by a key participant

in that discussion, Dr Wilcock.

4.20 I also convened a panel to discuss the implications of the proposed nutrient

management approach to Phormidium the mat forming blue-green algae (also

commonly known as cyanobacteria) that can produce toxins. The evidence of

Dr Young will summarise the outcomes of that panel discussion and Mrs

Madaraz-Smith will explain HBRC’s monitoring work in this area.

Stakeholder engagement around science programme

4.21 The evidence of Ms Codlin has taken you through the stakeholder

engagement process running over many years. To add to her discussion from

a technical perspective, I made numerous attempts to get early engagement

with key stakeholders such as HBF&G around science and technical matters.

For example HBF&G had suggested that they had commissioned their own

investigations into things such as nitrate toxicity and nutrient diffusing

substrate investigations that could have been usefully shared with HBRC, but

as at the date of finalising this evidence no data or investigations have been

made available (although I have been advised that HBF&G will supply some

of the data I have requested shortly, but too late to be considered in the

evidence in chief circulated for the applicants).

4.22 In response, I offered to convene an informal caucus of experts so that the

HBF&G experts could speak directly to our experts to allow evidence to be

shared and a collective view formed on what was needed to address areas of

uncertainty or difference. Despite numerous attempts to convene a caucus,

this was not able to be achieved.

4.23 As outlined in section 4.19 of my evidence I convened a panel of experts to

consider the nutrient management regime we had developed. Some time

prior to convening this workshop I had a telephone conversation with Ms

Corina Jordan from HBF&G. This conversation took place at an early stage of

Ms Jordan’s involvement in the Tukituki work on behalf of HBF&G. I was

pleased that Ms Jordan was involved as I wanted to get her technical input to

the approach we were considering. During that conversation Ms Jordan told

me that if I was to get the support of Dr Bob Wilcock for our nutrient

management approach for the Tukituki then she too would be comfortable

with the approach. It seemed to me that Ms Jordan valued the opinion of Dr

Wilcock and would be satisfied the approach was robust if he was. For this

reason I asked Dr Wilcock to participate in the workshop discussion. I should

record that at this stage I was satisfied that there was already sufficient

competency in the team advising on these issues but, based on the

conversation with Ms Jordan, I agreed to the addition of Dr Wilcock on the

basis that this would give HBF&G greater confidence in the end result. The

report on the workshop outcomes has been made available to HBF&G.

4.24 The evidence of Mr Daysh will explain the Land Use Intensification Working

Party for RWSS that was undertaken as part of the feasibility study for the

RWSS project. The primary objective of the group was to provide an

interactive working forum to follow the development and application of the

TRIM Model (see section 6 of my evidence); providing input into the

development and testing of potential on-farm and off-farm means of managing

and mitigating the effects of existing land use and intensification. At the 31

August 2012 Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group meeting all parties, apart from

HBF&G, participated in a process to capture the general position of the parties

in terms of the various environmental studies that had been completed for

feasibility purposes. At that same meeting all parties participating in the Land

Use Intensification Working Party process agreed with the working party’s

recommendations and signed off the final report with the exception of HBF&G

who issued a formal statement that was in my view a signal that they were no

longer interested in participating in a collaborative process. These events and

the subsequent problems in convening a caucusing meeting led me to believe

that HBF&G were not genuinely interested in any collaboration around the

science and technical investigations in the catchment.

5. SUMMARY OF THE TUKITUKI CATCHMENT MODELLING PROGRAMME

5.1 Modelling is an essential tool used by resource managers to predict the future

outcome of management decisions. Models have been essential in delivering

information to inform the policy development in this catchment.

5.2 There is often debate regarding the reliability of models. It is important to

recognise that HBRC has used models to provide a relative assessment of

future conditions. While the models have been designed and calibrated to be

as accurate as possible, I do not suggest (and I do not believe the model

developers would suggest) that the models provide a precise indication of the

future; I accept there will always be an inherent uncertainty in any modelling.

For that reason, the value in model predictions in my view is what they tell us

about the direction of change and the degree of relative change between

different scenarios, not the absolute numbers.

5.3 We have developed the following models for this catchment:

(a) The Tukituki River Model (TRIM) – I will give a broad description

shortly but Dr Rutherford who developed this model will describe it and

its outcomes in detail.

(b) OVERSEER models to input into TRIM – Mr Wheeler will describe

these models.

(c) A transient groundwater model – Dr Baalousha will describe this

model.

(d) A surface water model coupled to the transient groundwater model –

Mr Waldron and Dr Baalousha will describe this model.

(e) A nutrient transport model – to be described by Dr Baalousha.

6. LAND USE INTENSIFICATION

6.1 As mentioned previously, the Hawke’s Bay Region generally, and the Tukituki

Catchment in particular, experience regular droughts. Ms Codlin discusses

the competing demands for water and the challenges HBRC faced when

considering water take applications. This was the catalyst for approaching the

issue of water management differently.

6.2 Around 2008, HBRC realised that the combination of a drought prone region

and the impacts of this on instream ecology and out of stream users was

unsustainable. HBRC’s traditional approach as a regulator had never yielded

an enduring or comprehensive solution. This promoted thinking that was

lateral and unconventional for a regional council, but is logical in my view if

you consider that HBRC already has a role as the manager of significant

infrastructure to manage excess water (i.e. flood protection structures). Why

not also manage infrastructure for a paucity of water? The notion that HBRC

should be the driver for the provision of water storage in the catchment

emerged from this thinking.

6.3 The early consideration of broad scale water storage across the Tukituki

Catchment investigated many potential sites with a preference for multiple

sites so that construction could be staged over time. The evidence of Mr

Hansen will step you through these early site investigations and the process

that led to the selection of the Makaroro Dam site.

6.4 The technical science investigations continued in parallel with the RWSS

engineering pre-feasibility and full feasibility processes. Fortunately we had

the benefit of drawing on the experience of other regional councils in the

development of science programmes and in particular modelling to inform

water management policy. By way of contrast, I understand that in the case of

the Horizons One Plan, when setting instream water quality limits, a panel of

experts was convened. This panel finally agreed on limits to manage land use

effects on water quality but lamented the fact that no catchment specific bio-

geo-chemical models were available to assist with limit setting. Using this

learning, HBRC accepted that a catchment specific bio-geo-chemical model

would be required for RWSS feasibility assessments.

6.5 At this stage, NIWA was beginning a collaborative research project (involving

HBRC, CHBDC, Cawthron and GNS) on nutrient dynamics and nuisance

periphyton growth. This research has included field work carried out in the

Tukituki Catchment. One of the key outcomes of this work has been the

development of TRIM in 2011.

6.6 Simply put, TRIM models the mechanisms that transport nutrients from land to

water and then the mechanisms that see these nutrients determine the growth

of periphyton in the river. It has two sub-models, one deals with the nutrient

and one with periphyton. The evidence of Dr Rutherford will address the

detail of TRIM and its predictions.

6.7 The way that TRIM was originally designed meant that it was capable of

modelling the effects of land use on water quality in the mainstem of the

Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers in the area below Waipawa and Waipukurau.

We refer to this model as TRIM1.

6.8 Input assumptions for the nutrient loss modelling were developed through the

On-Farm Economic Study (2011) by Macfarlane Rural Business (MRB). This

included the predicted future land use and farm management practises that

would come in the initially defined RWSS irrigation command area (ICA),

being some 31,289 ha of land in Zones A-D and M (taking into account 25,000

ha of new irrigation that could be serviced by the RWSS and 6,289 ha of

current irrigation)9 . An additional 46,000 ha of land outside the ICA in “Zone

X” that was predicted to undergo land use change to support the changes

9 See section 4.7.1 RWSS Folder 4, Report M2

occurring in the ICA was also taken account of in the model. The evidence of

Mr Macfarlane will address his predictions as to the likely mix of land uses.

6.9 After we understood the land use scenarios that would result from the RWSS,

we undertook modelling to determine the nutrient loss that would come from

the land uses predicted. Specifically three scenarios were modelled:

(a) Scenario A - Current land use nutrient loss using the Plant and Food

Research (PFR) Soil Plant Atmosphere System Model (SPASMO)10.

This scenario provides a baseline against which the impact of land use

intensification under the RWSS might be assessed. In this scenario

MRB assumed ‘average’ on farm performance with practices and

nutrient losses typical of current farms and provided this information to

PFR to model.

(b) Scenario B (described as unmitigated) - The potential nutrient loss

from the predicted land use changes resulting from RWSS using

SPASMO. This scenario reflects the advice of MRB on what land use

changes might realistically be expected on irrigated farmland. The

purpose of this scenario is to quantify the likely increase in nutrient

losses resulting from land intensification associated with RWSS. This

scenario assumes the on farm management approach of the current

top 20% of farmers would be achieved across the RWSS (compared to

the ‘average' in scenario A). It also assumed no land use change in

Zone X. The evidence of Mr Millner and Mr Macfarlane will address

this in more detail.

(c) Scenario C (described as mitigated) - Mitigation options to avoid or

minimise nitrogen losses from land use intensification on water quality

through the OVERSEER model. This scenario tested the effect of N

loss mitigation by selecting land uses from scenario B and applying

specific mitigation actions to reduce N loss. Mr Millner addresses this

in more detail.

10 This modelling tool predicts the fate of surface-applied chemicals movement below the rootzone. This was later

abandoned in favour of the OVERSEER model partly because SPASMO was not open source software that HBRC

could use and operate itself using appropriately qualified staff but also because OVERSEER was better able to model

implementation of different mitigation options.

6.10 TRIM1 modelling at this point was conducted to consider the effects of the

scenarios outlined above on water quality in the mainstem of the Tukituki and

Waipawa Rivers in the area below Waipawa and Waipukurau. This then

informed decision making during the pre-feasibility stage of the RWSS.

6.11 At this stage, the development of Change 6 and RWSS and the associated

technical investigations were operating in parallel, but were relatively stand

alone. The RWSS at this point had no certainty as to the instream water

quality limits it would need to meet, because the Change 6 limits had not been

confirmed. This required TRIM1 to be expanded into the Ruataniwha Basin to

assist RWSS in assessing the potential effects of mitigated and unmitigated

land use intensification scenarios on water quality in this area. The expanded

model became TRIM2. TRIM2 not only considered the land under the RWSS

but the land use in the balance of the catchment.

6.12 The TRIM2 modelling at this point used the original Macfarlane land use

scenarios and utilised OVERSEER nutrient loss modelling inputs in place of

the original SPASMO ones. The OVERSEER modelling included not only the

RWSS consent area but land use outside this. The evidence of Mr Wheeler

and Mr Millner will address the OVERSEER modelling. Dr Rutherford then

used TRIM2 to predict the outcomes of land use with and without the RWSS.

6.13 At the time TRIM2 was under development, Dr Hickey’s NO3-N risk

management framework was finalised and adopted as the basis for setting

NO3-N limits in Change 6. As Dr Rutherford will explain, the modelling

(TRIM2) indicated that the unmitigated land use (Scenario B) could fit within

those NO3-N limits provided a small number of land parcels were managed

more aggressively with on farm mitigation to avoid stream segment ‘hotspots’

that could potentially breach the limits. This assessment formed part of the

RWSS applications.

6.14 TRIM2 has been recently refined and calibrated using data collected over

three successive summers (2010-2013). It has been subject to intensive

sensitivity analysis, the final model being referred to as TRIM3. The evidence

of Dr Rutherford will explain more of the detail of the model development.

6.15 A number of submissions seek the setting of a range of in-stream nitrogen

concentration limits. Using TRIM3 Dr Rutherford has rerun previous scenarios

and run a number of new scenarios in response to these submissions, with

the aim of providing the Board of Inquiry with information on both the land use

requirements and the periphyton outcomes of the nitrogen water quality and

land-use loss limits sought by different submitters. Because TRIM can only, at

this stage, be run one way (i.e. land use is an input, instream nutrient loads

and periphyton growth are an output), a range of scenarios was run to

encompass the range of in-stream DIN11 concentration limits sought by the

different submitters. The primary aim of this exercise was to explore the range

of in-stream nitrogen limits, so the phosphorus inputs to the model were kept

constant. Dr Rutherford will outline and explain the scenarios to you in his

evidence.

6.16 TRIM also modelled the different P management options, in particular the

effects of the application of Change 6's stock exclusion rule, and a limited

range of P mitigation measures applied to the RWSS land use.

6.17 The modelling undertaken to date has been complex and it is important to

recap for clarity:

(a) TRIM1 used MRB land use predictions and SPASMO/OVERSEER

nutrient losses to assess effects on water quality in the Tukituki and

Waipawa River mainstems below Waipawa and Waipukurau.

(b) TRIM2 is TRIM1 expanded to assess effects in the catchment above

Waipawa and Waipukurau as well as the mainstem below. It used the

original MRB land use predictions and new OVERSEER nutrient

losses.

(c) TRIM3 is a refinement of TRIM2 having undergone detailed sensitivity

analysis. It remodels the same land use predictions and OVERSEER

nutrient losses as TRIM2, as well as scenarios in response to

submissions.

7. FLOW OPTIMISATION

7.1 As noted previously, the combination of extended low flow periods, high

temperatures and the excess of phosphorus in the Tukituki River mainstem

results in a proliferation of periphyton. All rivers in the region experience long

accrual periods (the time between high river flows that remove periphyton)

that will see periphyton naturally build up to nuisance levels. 11 Dissolved inorganic Nitrogen

7.2 Again, this is an issue on which we benefitted from the experience of other

regional councils. For example the views of a range of periphyton experts

were considered in the development of the Horizons One Plan. Dr Barry

Biggs gave evidence to the council hearing panel for the One Plan that “one of

the most important messages to convey in this portion of the evidence is that

periphyton-nutrient relationships cannot be viewed independently of river flow

regimes. In the agricultural landscapes that dominate Horizons’ region (and

which are of primary concern for the POP), periphyton biomass is jointly

controlled by flow conditions (particularly the magnitude and frequency of

floods) and nutrient availability (particularly dissolved inorganic nitrogen and

phosphorus)”12. My emphasis added here.

7.3 That periphyton is controlled by flow as much as nutrients, is significant in the

context of the integrated management of the Tukituki Catchment. There is

currently no ability to manage flows in this catchment other than by controlling

water takes through consents. This reality was a key driver to consider the

use of stored water from the RWSS to artificially provide periodic releases of

water of sufficient scale and duration (what we term a flushing flow) to remove

some periphyton from parts of the catchment. In my opinion this is a

significant advantage that storage of the scale that the RWSS proposes brings

to the integrated management of this catchment. In my opinion this same

advantage is not available using smaller on-farm storage, with on-farm

storage potentially resulting in land use intensification without sufficient scale

of storage to provide flushing flows. The evidence of Drs Ausseil and Young

will examine the proposed RWSS’s flushing flow regime and the significant

instream benefits that this could deliver to the catchment.

7.4 In addition to the potential to aid in the control of periphyton, the RWSS offers

significant potential to improve the overall flow regime in the catchment

through providing an opportunity for existing consent holders to transfer,

cease or reduce their water takes. The potential improvements that might

accrue to the river will be explained in the evidence of Mr Leong and Dr

Young.

7.5 The potential for irrigators to access an alternate supply of water as reliable as

that proposed by the RWSS is also a significant advantage for existing users

who are facing a reliability of supply situation that is significantly altered under 12 Page 2 on http://www.horizons.govt.nz/assets/1plan_eoh-report/Dr-Barry-John-Franklyn-Biggs-Revised-S42A-showing-tracked-changes.pdf

http://www.horizons.govt.nz/assets/1plan_eoh-report/Dr-Barry-John-Franklyn-Biggs-Revised-S42A-showing-tracked-changes.pdf

http://www.horizons.govt.nz/assets/1plan_eoh-report/Dr-Barry-John-Franklyn-Biggs-Revised-S42A-showing-tracked-changes.pdf

Change 6. While existing users cannot and should not be forced to utilise

RWSS water, if it proceeds, the RWSS will provide an alternative that would

not normally be available for consent holders when evaluating the viability of

their business models under the flow regime ultimately approved by the Board

of Inquiry. It is also important to note here that under Change 6 the RWSS

cannot have any detrimental effect on existing consented takes and therefore

proposed conditions of consent for the RWSS outline a regime to ensure this.

8. RESPONSE TO SUBMITTER POINTS REGARDING OUTSTANDING WATERBODIES

8.1 Some submitters13 are seeking that the Tukituki River, the Waipawa River, the

Makaretu River, the Makaroro River, the Ruataniwha Basin and Lake Hatuma

should be identified and classified as outstanding. I do not agree that these

water bodies could be considered outstanding. My opinion addresses the

issue from a technical perspective.

8.2 I proceed on the basis, (drawn from decisions of the Environment Court) that

‘outstanding’ means conspicuous, eminent, special by excellence, as standing

out from the rest, or remarkable - in other words, this is a high standard that

has to be met.

8.3 The submission of HBF&G infers that the high use of the Tukituki and

Waipawa Rivers for trout fishing classifies them as outstanding. HBRC

commissioned work from Dr Martin Unwin14 to report on the regional and

national significance of the Tukituki River trout fishery. Dr Unwin informed us

that the angling resources are of at least regional significance15. I agree with

Dr Unwin that the Tukituki River fishery is at least regionally significant, but I

would go further: in my opinion, based on its level of angling use, it is

nationally significant, but not outstanding. Dr Unwin notes, as do HBF&G, that

the high use of the Tukituki River angling resource is likely due to its

accessibility and proximity to the urban areas of Hastings and Havelock

North16. I agree with Dr Unwin and would add that in my opinion this high use

alone is not a measure of ‘outstandingness’ for the fishery but is rather a

product of its location in the region.

13 Including HBF&G (34 & 242), Te Taiao Environment Forum (66 & 374) and HBDHB (30) 14 Change 6, Folder 2, Tab 4 15 Change, 6, Folder 2, Tab 4, page 12 16 Change 6, Folder 2, Tab 4, page 12

8.4 The Tukituki River catchment is highly modified. After it leaves the Ruahine

Ranges, it flows through a landscape modified by land use change and flood

protection works. The vast majority of the angling effort occurs in the lower

part of the catchment. It is what we might call a ‘lowland’ fishery as opposed to

an ‘upland’ fishery such as that found in the Mohaka River above State

Highway Five. In my opinion the Tukituki River trout fishery is one that

supports an average catch rate of average sized, primarily rainbow trout. On

a national scale, the trout and the angler’s ability to catch them is no better or

worse than any other lowland fishery and in my opinion is certainly not

outstanding.

8.5 I was an author of the current HBF&G Sports Fish and Game Bird

Management Plan17. Pages 23, 35 & 36 are of particular relevance here. In

developing that plan I considered the habitats of sports fish and game birds.

The plan clearly acknowledges the Water Conservation Order over parts of

the Mohaka River and mentions the fact that the Heretaunga Protected

Natural Areas report and most recent Hawke’s Bay Conservation

Management Strategy signal that the upper Ngaruroro is likely to be

considered outstanding and worthy of recognition as such. In the

development of the Sports Fish and Game Bird Management Plan, I was part

of a team of HBF&G staff who considered the Tukituki River and tributaries

and agreed it was of regional or possibly national significance as a trout

fishery but was not of the same calibre as either the Mohaka or Ngaruroro

which have significant landscape and amenity values as well as trout fishery

values. For those reasons, the Tukituki was not considered outstanding.

8.6 Turning now to the Hawke's Bay District Health Board's submission that the

Ruataniwha Basin aquifer should be deemed outstanding based on its size

and importance to the Region, I acknowledge the size and importance of this

resource on a regional scale, but disagree that it would pass a threshold of

outstanding. If we consider both regional and national comparisons, the use

of the Ruataniwha Basin groundwater is less than Heretaunga. The

Heretaunga aquifer that sits below Napier and Hastings has a far greater

number of consented takes (approximately 2000 compared to Ruataniwha’s

83). As a national comparison White and Reeves18 estimated the average

17 http://hawkesbay.fishandgame.org.nz/sites/default/files/Sports.pdf 18 P A White and R R Reeves 2002 The volume of groundwater in New Zealand 1994 to 2001 Client Report 2002/79

http://hawkesbay.fishandgame.org.nz/sites/default/files/Sports.pdf

regional groundwater volume for Canterbury to be 431 X 109 M3, Waikato 35 X

109 M3, Bay of Plenty 32 X 109 M3 and Hawke’s Bay 10 X 109 M3.

8.7 The Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum consider that in addition to the

mainstem of the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers, two tributaries (Makaretu and

Makaroro Rivers) should be classified outstanding based on the use of these

rivers by indigenous birds and native fish. Based on my knowledge of these

rivers, and the evidence I have seen to date, I disagree and, like the

consideration of the trout fishery and Ruataniwha Basin, see no factor that

might give these tributaries this status.

8.8 A report by Sharp19 that was prepared with significant input from the Te Taiao

Hawke’s Bay Forum members considers riverine bird habitat and notes that

the braided rivers in the catchment are of regional significance. I agree with

this assessment.

8.9 The evidence of Ms Cameron will outline the native fish values of the Tukituki

River catchment. Her evidence does not identify any features from a native

fish perspective that in my opinion would indicate these tributaries should be

classified as outstanding native fish habitat.

8.10 The Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum also considers that Lake

Hatuma is ecologically outstanding. I again reflect on the current HBF&G

Sports Fish and Game Bird Management Plan. This plan identifies areas of

significant habitat (including nationally significant) and considers Lake Hatuma

to be regionally significant but does not consider it to be nationally significant,

or indeed outstanding. I agree with this assessment and acknowledge the

importance of Lake Hatuma on a regional scale as a wetland but disagree it

can be considered outstanding. I also note that the Implementation Guide for

the NPSFM indicates that that the rarity of wetlands nationally does not

necessarily make all wetlands significant but that the significance of a wetland

must be determined within a region.

9. WATER MANAGEMENT ZONES

9.1 The catchment has been divided into different geographical zones for different

resource management objectives. This is explained in Part B of the Section

19 Change 6, Folder 2, Tab 1, pages 37-38

32 Evaluation Summary Report20 and also the report titled Freshwater

Management Objectives21. That report also summarises how the zone

boundaries were determined. Ms Codlin has described the various water

management zones that underpin Change 6.

9.2 A number of submissions22 have requested that the Water Management

Zones for the Tukituki Catchment be based on the 17 sub-catchments as

described in the Planning Map contained in Schedule XIV. From a technical

perspective, Dr Ausseil will explain why the Ruataniwha Basin should be

managed using Zones 2 and 3 and not split into sub-catchments. Modelling

by GNS Science23 indicated the groundwater divide using a particle tracking

method. This divide was not practical from a planning perspective and so the

divide was right-lined to the Waipawa River reflecting that for planning

purposes, boundaries need to be easily identifiable. The approach taken is in

my view conservative as it has the effect of managing contaminants coming

from the area of low background level (Zone 2) in the area of high background

level (Zone 3).

9.3 Dr Ausseil expresses no view on the merits of managing Zones 1 and 4 at a

sub-catchment scale. Unlike Dr Ausseil, I am not neutral on the merits of

managing Zones 1 and 4 at a sub-catchment scale. I do not believe that this

level of water management is warranted either hydrologically or from a benefit

to resource management or cost to the community basis. My reasons follow.

9.4 Given the complexity of the hydrology in this catchment, any monitoring

programmes designed to clearly understand the effect of land use on water

quality at a sub-catchment scale would need to be equally as complex as the

sub-catchments themselves and would require a significant investment of on-

the-ground resources and staff to manage and report. The costs of doing this

therefore would be significant and in my view unwarranted for the minor

resource management gains that might result.

9.5 Zone 4 contains rivers that leave the Ruahine Forest Park and is a relatively

unmodified part of the catchment. In my opinion, the water management

issues that could be realistically foreseen in this part of the catchment are

negligible and certainly not of a type or scale that would require detailed and 20 Change 6, Folder 1, tab 3, page 12 21 Change 6, Folder 1, tab 3, page 16 22 T Belford (7), Havelock North/Hastings F&B (343), HBF&G (334 & 242), T Kelly (45 &381), NKII (51 & 359), Te Taiao (66 & 374), Heretaunga Taiwhenua (68) 23 Change 6, Folder 3, Tab 5, page 11

costly monitoring and reporting by sub-catchment. For example, we currently

have 12 long term state of the environment monitoring sites under the Zone

approach. In addition to this, we monitor an additional 10 sites every 5 years.

This 5 yearly approach captures the majority of the sub-catchments. Under a

sub-catchment approach we would need to monitor all 22 sites annually. That

would incur additional capital cost of approximately $300,000 and additional

annual operating costs of approximately $350,000. Zone 1 is a part of the

catchment that is highly modified and has been subject to significant change

post human settlement. The level of production land use across this Zone is

relatively uniform and does not vary greatly between sub-catchments. In my

opinion there are no foreseeable issues that might realistically be expected in

this part of the catchment that would require detailed and costly monitoring

and reporting by sub-catchment.

9.6 I support Dr Ausseil’s opinion that from a technical perspective, there is no

merit in managing Zones 2 and 3 at a sub-catchment scale. Based on the

costs required to manage at a sub-catchment scale in Zones 1 and 4

compared to the minor resource management gains that might result and to

ensure consistency of approach across the catchment, I recommend that the

Zone-based approach to water management be retained.

10. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES FRAMEWORK

10.1 In April 2012, the Land and Water Forum made recommendations to Ministers

on further measures to support the implementation of the objective and limit

setting requirements of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater

Management 2011 (NPSFM).

10.2 Amongst other things, the Forum’s recommendations included the

establishment of a national objectives framework (NOF) (including national

bottom-lines) to support and guide objective setting by regional councils.

10.3 I have sat on the reference panel for the NOF process as a regional council

representative since 2012 when the concept was first developed.

10.4 The NOF process is seeking to develop a framework of national bottom lines

or limits for key water quality and quantity attributes that will apply in all

regions. The framework also proposes a method to assess and set limits

regionally for other attributes at a regional, catchment or other management

unit scale.

10.5 In my opinion Change 6 is consistent with the thinking and direction that the

NOF framework proposes. For example:

(a) It has been developed in conjunction with the community and iwi

recognising the values they ascribe to the Tukituki River.

(b) It recognises attributes that contribute to community and iwi values and

sets limits to manage them (e.g. nitrate toxicity limits to protect key fish

and macroinvertebrates species).

11. POLICY TT15

The Need for Good Quality Water Use Data

11.1 HBRC needs good quality water use data to efficiently monitor for compliance

with rules and consent conditions, and enable the region's resources to be

managed sustainably in the long term. The smart use of technology can ensure

costs are kept as low as possible while helping to increase levels of

compliance, compliance certainty and usefulness of water measuring data for

longer term resource management and end user purposes. It is also as

important to ensure that policy and systems allow the full utilization of available

water as any water allocated but unutilized is an opportunity cost to the

community.

Higher Standards than Water Measuring Regulations

11.2 To gather good quality water use data, HBRC seeks to include policy that is

more stringent than the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of

Water Takes) Regulations 2010 (the Regulations). This approach is consistent

with the regulations as they were created to set the minimum standard for water

metering in New Zealand. There is nothing in the regulations that set the

maximum standards for water metering.

Lessons learnt

11.3 HBRC has been collecting water use data for over 15 years. Our experience

shows that lower quality water use data leads to less certainty in planning

decisions, with increased cost during consent processes in catchments where

water is close to or fully allocated. Lower quality water use data also leads to

less accurate water resource models. There is however a careful balancing act

of requiring as much water use data as possible but not incurring significant

costs to achieve this.

Specific issues

11.4 HBRC seeks to manage the cumulative effect of increasing numbers of

consents that are utilising close to 100% of their allocated volume and have

domestic/stock/fire-fighting water taken through the same meter. The

domestic/stock/fire-fighting water is often used as a reason for exceeding the

consented volume. To confirm whether a section 14(3) take24 caused the

breach is time consuming and costly. If domestic or stock water is flowing

through the consented meter, then in my opinion the meter is not measuring the

consented volume of water to the +/- 5% as required by the Regulations.

11.5 A +/-3% accuracy threshold for any verification device has been agreed to as a

nationally consistent approach. This has been adopted by regional councils

through the national forum ‘the Resource Managers' Group’ that I sit on as a

result of work undertaken at workshops attended by all Councils, MfE, and

industry stakeholders.

11.6 The use of flow rigs for verification is promoted. Industry and Council experts

accept that it is very costly and/or difficult to use the other verification methods

when trying to achieve an estimate of meter accuracy of +/-3%. The two

installers in Hawke’s Bay who have been working proactively in this space

agree a flow rig is the best option for the majority of sites. They believe that to

undertake the required modifications when onsite during meter installation, or

other infrastructure maintenance/installation, is likely to be cheaper in the short

to medium term than attempting to use other methods such as clamp-on

ultrasonic meters. Experience has shown that flow rigs give the most precise

flow measure and other inferior methods have the potential to penalise consent

holders by failing an installation that might otherwise be compliant. HBRC

acknowledges that there will be some sites that cannot use a flow rig for

practical or cost reasons. If a flow rig cannot be used, the approved verifier can

complete a verification assessment provided they can demonstrate they are

skilled enough and have the correct equipment. It should be noted that this

policy does not restrict a skilled professional from using other verification

options if they can demonstrate competency to HBRC.

24 Section 14(3)(b)(i)&(ii) of the RMA 1991 allows for the taking of water for an individuals reasonable domestic needs or for stock drinking water

11.7 The use of telemetry is promoted for the following reasons:

(a) During a low flow season it is very labour intensive to effectively

monitor any take bans for catchments. To effectively monitor a ban in a

catchment that has a large number of takes without telemetry, staff

must manually read the meters at the start of the ban and then at

random intervals during the ban. Telemetry minimises this need. When

telemetry is installed, staff only need to do random inspections within

the catchment during a ban. This combined with aerial monitoring25 is

more efficient and cost effective than having to individually inspect

each meter.

(b) Where a consent covers multiple properties and take points, the water

user may have several pumps that may be used to abstract water from

the same surface water body. Telemetry provides protection that the

rate of take from multiple take sites does not breach the total rate take

for the consent. This is becoming more frequent as the region sees

more consent holders merging their multiple small consents in one

catchment into one consent to reduce administration and compliance

costs.

(c) Water metering data from mobile pumps being used on multiple

properties/consents has proven to be very difficult for the consent

holder and HBRC to manage. This is because several people would

often be dealing with the same pump and mixing up the readings

between pumps or not reading the meter at all. When the water

metering regulations came into effect, staff worked with industry to

develop telemetered and GPS monitored meters on mobile pumps.

This meant that the pump could be taken to any consented property

that was linked to that pump, and used without the need for the

contractor’s staff to correctly record water use. The telemetry system in

Council takes the water use data and the GPS location data and

automatically assigns it to the appropriate consent. This method allows

costs saving opportunities for consent holders by not requiring them to

install telemetry capable water metering units on each take point.

(d) From time to time there are consent holders that fail to return their data

in accordance with their consent conditions. Rather than using on- 25 Using aircraft to fly the region and look for areas that have been irrigated or where irrigators are operating

going low-medium level enforcement action to obtain this data, it is in

my view more cost effective for both consent holders and council staff,

and better resource management practice, to review such consents

and require telemetry to be installed.

(e) In response to the changes proposed by Mr van Voorthuysen to POL

TT11, I recommend that POL TT15(1)(g)(vi) be amended as follows.

The take is classified as having Direct, High or Medium Depletion

Effects as defined by POL TT11;

12. COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS TO POL TT15

12.1 I have been provided with copies of the submissions received on Change 6.

Relevant to my area of expertise I address the following issues raised by the

submitters:

(a) Submitter 13 (page 3), Wayne Church – All water used for commercial

purposes should be measured with respect to takes less than 5 l/s and

consent requirements for spray tank filling take points.

(b) Submitter 41 (page 10), Irrigation New Zealand – Amend POL TT15

(1)(d), delete POL TT15 (1)(f)(ii) & (iii). Telemetry devices should not

be required to operate 365 days per year.

(c) Submitter 39 (page 13 Sec 1.3.9), Horticulture New Zealand & others –

reference to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Technical Specifications

and Installation Requirements for Flow Meters. Takes less than 5 l/s

not metered to the same standards as takes greater than 5 l/s.

(d) Submitter 37 (page 4, section 10) Heinz Watties Limited -delete POL

TTL 15 1(g)(vii) allowing Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to use

discretion to require Telemetry.

(e) Submitters 36 and 351 (page 4, section 9) Hawkes Bay Wine Growers

Association Incorporated and Harding Family Trust – Use of Telemetry.

(f) Submitter 34 (page 44), HBF&G – require mobile pumps to location

recorded as well as irrigation system as required by POL TT 15 (1)(b).

(g) Submitter 75 (page 2), Gerald and Thomas Wilson & Submitter 86

(page 2), Richard Anderton Dakins - +/- 3% accuracy & Stock Water

measurement

(h) Submitter 280 (page 8), David Werrey – cost to measure and report

too high.

(i) Submitter 283 (page 20-21), Ruataniwha Water Users Group – Amend

POL TT15 (1)(d), delete POL TT15 (1)(f)(ii&(iii).

(j) Submitter 304 (page 17), Environmental Defense Society (EDS) –

suggests additional metering and reporting is required that is not

covered in TT15.

(k) Submitter 314 (page 8), Patrick Maloney – seek meters are verified

every 3 years not 5.

(l) Submitter 376 (page 30), Mr Apple NZ Ltd – seeks appropriate

measuring methods for all scales of take

(m) Submitter 362 (page 4) Eugenie Sage – HBRC’s role compromised

Submitter 75 (page 2), Gerald and Thomas Wilson & Submitter 86 (page 2), Richard Anderton Dakins - +/- 3% accuracy & Stock Water measurement

12.2 Submitter 75 and Submitter 86 appear to seek that the requirement for a

verification assessment of +/-3% be abandoned.

12.3 They infer that the verification device itself cannot be accurate to +/- 3%. I

disagree because the first two flow rigs built in Hawkes Bay for verification had

an accuracy of less than 0.5 %.

12.4 With regard to the submitters' suggestion that stock water should not be

measured, I agree. The policy seeks to ensure that section 14(3) stock water

does not flow through consented meters.

12.5 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that POL TT15 not be altered.

Submitter 283 (pages 20-21), Ruataniwha Water Users Group – Amend POL TT15 (1)(d), delete POL TT15 (1)(f)(ii&(iii).

12.6 The submitters seek the following relief: Amend POL TT 15 (1)(d) to read as

follows, or wording of similar intent:

“The meter shall have an installed accuracy no less than with no more

uncertainty than +/-5%, as measured at the consented rate of take.”

12.7 With regard to the relief sought I consider that the request to delete the word

'uncertainty' is technically correct. I disagree that the wording should only

require the installed meter to be accurate at the consented rate of take. Given

the extensive use of variable speed pumps that are capable of pumping

variable volumes (and so rates) of water it is therefore important that the

installed meter has the desired accuracy across all potential volumes.

12.8 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that provision POL TT

15(1)(d), Change 6 be amended as follows:

‘POL TT15 1(d) reads ‘The meter shall have an installed accuracy within

with no more uncertainty than +/-5%, for all volumes of water that are

taken under the consent.’

12.9 The submitters seek the following relief: Delete POL TT 15 (1)(f)(ii) and (iii).

12.10 With regard to the relief sought I consider that the submitter’s concerns are not

warranted. If an approved verifier can demonstrate competency in using

another method, they can obtain approval to use that other method as provided

for in the policy.

12.11 Having considered the relief sought I recommend no change to POL TT 15 in

this regard.

Submitter 41 (page 10), Irrigation New Zealand – Amend POL TT15 (1)(d), delete POL TT15 (1)(f)(ii&(iii). Telemetry devices should not be required to operate 365 days per year.

12.12 The submitter seeks the following relief: change the wording of POL TTL 15

1(d) to ‘…accuracy of no more uncertainty than +/-5%.’

12.13 This matter is covered in my evidence above.

12.14 The submitter also seeks: That condition ii & iii of TT 15 1(f) should be deleted

to remove the specific reference to flow rigs being used for verification.

12.15 This matter is also covered in my evidence above.

12.16 Having considered the relief sought, I recommend no change to POL TT 15

other than that set out in 12.8 above for the reasons already given.

12.17 The submitter seeks the following relief: That telemetry devices should only be

required to operative during the period of use.

12.18 With regard to the relief sought I consider what the submitter is trying to achieve

is practical. However I consider that it is imperative that the take device/pump

should not be able to be operated without the telemetry device working and

random audits being undertaken by Council.

12.19 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that TTL 15.2(a)(iii) of

Change 6 be amended as follows.

POL TTL 15.2(a)(iii) reads ‘Telemetry devices shall not be able to be made

inoperable while the pump or take system is operating. Fixed The telemetry

devices shall be operative 365 days of the year; or if the telemetry device needs

to be turned off to save on operating costs, the consent holder shall inform the

Council when turning the telemetry device off.’

Submitter 39 (page 13 Sec 1.3.9), Horticulture New Zealand & others – reference to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Technical Specifications and Installation Requirements for Flow Meters. Takes less than 5 l/s not metered to the same standards as takes greater than 5 l/s.

12.20 The submitter seeks the following relief: Amend POL TT 15 to require water

measurement and reporting as set out in the s. 360 Regulations for Water

measurement or provide a more appropriate method for measuring takes that is

fit for purpose for all scales of water take.

12.21 With regard to the relief sought I consider that POL TT 15 should not be

amended for the following reasons:

(a) The current formal and informal policies adopted by HBRC are

consistent with the Resource Management (Measurement and

Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010.

(b) HBRC and the submitter were both on the working group that assisted

the Ministry for the Environment to develop the Regulations.

(c) Through that process it was made clear to all stakeholders that the

Regulations were to set the minimum standard for measuring devices

across New Zealand. HBRC currently requires water meters for some

takes below 5 l/s when the take is subject to minimum flow restrictions

as a means of assessing compliance with minimum flow restrictions

and use the water take information to improve resource models.

(d) Having differing standards for differing rates of takes will lead to

confusion amongst consent holders as to what is expected and also

result in unnecessary costs if they increase their rate of take above 5

l/s and have installed lesser standard meters that are not accurate

enough to operate within the permitted tolerance.

12.22 The submitter states the Council should not be able to use the most current

version of the ‘Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Technical Specifications and

Installation Requirements for Flow Meters’ because Hawke’s Bay Regional

Council could change the specifications without consultation.

12.23 I agree that it would be inappropriate to have this wording as a rule. However

this is not a rule, it is policy that will inform the consenting process. Good

practice consent processes include the most relevant best practice standards

as conditions. Unless specifically mentioned in the relevant rule, consent

officers generally select the best standards available at the time the consent is

issued.

12.24 To adopt the relief the submitter is requesting would result in the requirement

for a plan change to make amendments to ‘best practice’ or standards

developed in consultation with industry.

12.25 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that POL TT 15 not be further

altered.

Submitter 37 (page 4, section 10) Heinz Watties Limited - Delete POL TTL 15 1(g)(vii) allowing Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to use discretion to require Telemetry.

12.26 The submitter seeks the following relief: Remove clause TT 15 1(g)(vii) and give

HBRC discretion to require telemetry.

12.27 This matter was covered in section 11.7 of my evidence.

12.28 With regard to the relief sought, I consider it necessary to enable Council

officers to be able to require telemetry when there is non-compliance with water

meter use returns, and when there are unique unforeseen resource

management situations that may require telemetry.

12.29 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that POL TT 15 not be altered

in this regard.

Submitters 36 and 351 (page 4, section 9) - Hawkes Bay Wine Growers Association Incorporated and Harding Family Trust – Use of Telemetry.

12.30 The submitter seeks no particular relief but provides comment on the

requirements to reporting water use with regard to frequency, the use of

telemetry and HBRC’s discretion to require telemetry.

12.31 This matter was covered in section 11.7 of my evidence.

12.32 With regard to the relief sought, I consider that my evidence referred to above

outlines when telemetry is justified in the listed situations.

12.33 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that POL TT 15 not be

altered.

Submitter 34 (page 44), HBF&G – require mobile pumps to record location as well as the irrigation system as required by POL TT 15 (1)(b).

12.34 The submitter seeks the following relief: to require the location of mobile

irrigators that require a GPS in TT 15 (1)(b) to record the location of the pump

or take system.

12.35 With regard to the relief sought, I consider the request to be useful clarification

of what was intended, which is to record the location of the point of take, that

being best represented by the pump or take system rather than the irrigator.

12.36 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that provisions POL

TT15(1)(b) be amended as follows:

POL TT15(1)(b) reads ‘Any single mobile pumps or take systems that are

used on more than one property or for more than one take consent and a

water meter is required in accordance with POL TT15(1)(a), an integral

tamperproof GPS location of the mobile pump or take system’s irrigator’s

position with data provided at 15 minute intervals is required with the telemetry

data required by POL TT15(1)(g).’

Submitter 13 (page 3), Wayne Church – All water used for commercial purposes should be measured with respect to takes less than 5 l/s and consent requirements for spray tank filling take points.

12.37 The submitter seeks no particular relief but provides comment on the need to

measure all water taken for commercial purposes and by inference would like to

see spray tank filling takes permitted by Rule TT3 to require a resource

consent. The evidence of Mr van Voorthuysen will consider Rule TT3.

12.38 Having considered the submission made I recommend no change to the

provisions of POL TT15 in response.

Submitter 280 (page 8), David Werrey – cost to measure and report too high.

12.39 The submitter seeks no particular relief but states that water measuring and

reporting requirements are too expensive, for consent costs and to provide

telemetry.

12.40 This matter was covered in sections 11.1 to 11.7 of my evidence.

12.41 Having considered the relief sought, I recommend that POL TT15 not be altered

in response.

Submitter 304 (page 17), Environmental Defence Society (EDS) – suggests additional metering and reporting is required that is not covered in POL TT15.

12.42 The submitter seeks no particular relief but wants to add an as yet undefined

requirement for water meters and minimum reporting for water takes not

currently covered by this policy.

12.43 These matters are discussed in sections 11.1-11.7 of my evidence.

12.44 Having considered the relief sought, I recommend that POL TT15 not be

altered.

Submitter 314 (page 8), Patrick Maloney – seek meters are verified every 3 years not 5 and financial penalties for non-compliance changing.

12.45 The submitter seeks no particular relief but asks that verification occur every 3

years not every 5.

12.46 I agree in part with the submitter on this request. Regional Councils around

New Zealand have been grappling with the concept of fit for purpose meters. I

asked my staff to contact water meter suppliers in New Zealand and ask them

how long they provide accuracy warranties on mechanical water meters. There

were no suppliers willing to give an accuracy warranty on a mechanical meter

used for irrigation purposes. Therefore given this response from suppliers, I

believe that there is value requiring mechanical meters to be verified for

accuracy every three years. I believe verification at five yearly intervals for non-

mechanical meters is appropriate.

12.47 Having considered the relief sought I recommend that provisions POL

TT15(1)(f) be amended as follows:

POL TT15(1)(f) reads ‘The meter shall be verified upon installation. Non-

mechanical meters shall be verified to be accurate every five years and

mechanical meters shall be verified to be accurate every three years.’

12.48 The submitter seeks no particular relief but requests a system of financial

penalties to encourage compliance and assist enforcement, and provide a

mechanism that when penalties are not paid the consented water takes for

irrigation are terminated.

12.49 With regard to the relief sought I consider that POL TT15 should not be

amended because there are adequate tools available in the Resource

Management Act to deal with non-compliance.

Submitter 376 (page 30), Mr Apple NZ Ltd – seeks appropriate measuring methods for all scales of take

12.50 The submitter seeks no particular relief but wants to see the provision of a

more appropriate method for measuring takes that is fit for purpose for all

scales of water take.

12.51 This has been addressed in section 11.1-11.7 of my evidence.

12.52 Having considered the relief sought, I recommend that POL TT15 not be

altered in response to the submission.

13. RESPONSE TO SUBMITTER CONCERNS ABOUT CONFLICTS AND CAPABILITY

13.1 Eugenie Sage (submitter 362) has suggested that:

(a) HBRC’s active promotion of the RWSS through its wholly owned

subsidiary, the Hawke’s Bay Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC)

undermines the public confidence in HBRC as an objective and

independent environmental regulator and water manager.

(b) Granting consent would undermine the effective administration and

implementation of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and public

confidence in that

(c) If consent was granted the size, cost and complexity would preoccupy

HBRC to the detriment of its other statutory functions.

13.2 As the HBRC Group Manager with responsibility to deliver regulatory

outcomes for HBRC, I will respond to each point in turn:

(a) I disagree that promotion of RWSS undermines public confidence or

the ability of HBRC to regulate effectively or manage water. Mr

Hansen will describe the company structure likely for the RWSS. The

consent holder will have the obligation to deliver to the satisfaction of

HBRC any consent conditions. It will be ‘at arms length’ from the

regulatory functions of HBRC and under its own management

structure. It would be required to report on compliance with consent

conditions and this information would be available for public scrutiny.

There is no opportunity in these processes to ‘hide’ poor performance

of any consent holder. In my opinion the fact that HBRC staff

understand the detail of the RWSS development places them in a very

strong position to understand the detail of any consents and their

associated conditions to ensure that the appropriate action occurs to

achieve the resource management outcomes required from the

consent.

(b) For the reasons outlined above it is my opinion that effective

administration and implementation of the RMA is best achieved by

those who have in-depth and detailed understanding of the RWSS

design, consent and consent conditions.

(c) I assume the submitter has concerns about the capacity of HBRC to

resource the effective regulation of any consent issued to HBRIC (or its

associated companies) as well as its other statutory functions. Any

costs associated with consent monitoring would fall with the consent

holder. I have considered this matter and discussed it with staff within

the regulatory part of my team. We have no concerns about HBRC’s

capacity to do this work as we would simply be scaling the staff team

up to meet future demands of the work as we do now. In my

experience this can happen quickly and given the RWSS is unlikely to

be built quickly (years not weeks) we would be able to respond

accordingly.

13.3 In summary I do not agree with any points raised by the submitter and am

confident that HBRC is best placed and could respond effectively to any

regulation of the RWSS.

Iain Maxwell September 2013

Exhibit IDM 1 – Losing and gaining reaches in the Tukituki catchment

Exhibit IDM 2- Mean Annual Rainfall in the Tukituki Catchment

Exhibit IDM 3 Groundwater model boundary and groundwater monitoring sites

Exhibit IDM 4 Key water quality monitoring sites

Exhibit IDM 5 Location of consents within catchment

Exhibit IDM 6 Consents for Central Hawke’s Bay District Council waste water

IDM 7 Monitoring results from Waipawa waste water plant

DATE DATE DAYS INTRVL

DO ppm

TEMP ºC TIME hrs

pH Range 6.5-8.5

FC cfu's/100mL

Range <75000

E-COLI cfu's/100mL

cBOD5 Levels

>30 mg/L and 36 mg/L

SS Levels > 45mg/L and >

76mg/L

Am. N. NH4-N

N DRP P

OLD PLANT 9-Jan-13 3-Jan-13 14 2.7 22.2 9.45 7.2 200,000 180,000 26 82 3.77 20.6 4.84 6.64

25-Jan-13 17-Jan-13 14 0.53 22.5 10.25 7.4 113,000 113,000 21 36 7.67 15.7 6.5 8.49 12-Feb-13 31-Jan-13 14 4.48 23.7 10.20 7.7 101,000 101,000 16 55 16.1 25.6 5.52 8.8 21-Feb-13 14-Feb-13 14 0.9 21.6 11.15 7.7 960,000 960,000 15 31 17.8 24.4 6.33 7.46 6-Mar-13 28-Feb-13 14 2.21 20.5 10.35 7.7 27,000 25,000 12 34 18.9 24.8 6.89 8.25

21-Mar-13 14-Mar-13 14 1.6 18.9 10.15 7.5 83,400 80,900 19 33 15.9 23.9 6.79 7.87 4-Apr-13 27-Mar-13 13 0.42 18.8 11.05 7.2 8,640 7,640 20 40 <0.01 14.2 4.89 6.22

18-Apr-13 11-Apr-13 15 1.75 15.0 11.25 7.3 140,000 117,000 21 40 5.29 17.6 6.41 7.76 29-Apr-13 23-Apr-13 12 0.21 16.0 10.00 7.2 220,000 160,000 22 44 2.43 16 6.5 7.46 17-May-13 9-May-13 16 1.72 13.2 11.30 7.2 22,000 10,000 19 54 4.7 18.3 6.68 7.69 30-May-13 23-May-13 14 0.83 13.8 10.20 6.9 5,900 5,100 34 71 0.14 18 6.35 6.99 17-Jun-13 6-Jun-13 14 5.04 10.3 11.35 7 18,400 18,200 22 38 <0.01 14.8 5.72 5.58 1-Jul-13 20-Jun-13 14 2.51 12.0 10.10 7.2 35,000 33,000 5.9 14 0.71 13 3.39 3.72

POST NEW PLANT 17-Jul-13 4-Jul-13 14 6.83 8.1 11.40 7.2 2,500 2,400 5.9 14 7.4 15 0.385 1.32 24-Jul-13 18-Jul-13 14 8.6 8.3 11.10 7 300 300 5.9 5 5.5 10.5 0.059 0.286 12-Aug-13 1-Aug-13 14 7.25 9.4 11.50 7 1,000 700 5.9 9 9.5 13.3 0.043 0.417 24-Aug-13 15-Aug-13 14 6.34 11.4 11.15 7 200 200 5.9 11 10.2 13.3 0.059 0.539

before the board of inquiry in the matter …2.3 the climate is mild and the catchment sits in a...

Documents