12 March 2008 - Questions from the floor
Q. Are there flow records for the Tukituki River farther back than 1988?
A. The flow recorder site on the Tukituki River at Shag Rock (just downstream of Tamumu Bridge) goes back to 1988. Records for Tukituki River at Red Bridge start in 1968, Tukituki River at Tapairu Rd starts in 1987, and Waipawa River at RDS starts in 1988.
Flow information for up to the last 12 months can be accessed on the website.
Q. Why was the ban on the Tukituki at Tapairu Rd not enforced at 1900 l/sec as contained in the Regional Resource Management Plan?
A. The minimum flow at this site used to be 1600 l/sec and there are a number of existing consents which are still subject to that minimum flow. Consent holders are entitled to operate under existing consents until expiry. Upon renewal they will be subject to any new provisions in the Regional Plan.
Q. Are there ‘acceptable’ chlorophyll a levels or guidelines?
A. The Ministry for the Environment New Zealand Periphyton Guideline (2000) recommend the following:
| Instream Value | Diatoms/Cyanobacteria mg/m2 | Filamentous Algae
mg/m2 |
| Aesthetics | N/A | 120 |
| Benthic Biodiversity | 50 | 50 |
| Trout Habitat & Angling | 200 | 120 |
These guidelines were stated as provisional due to the complexity of linking chlorophyll a with biomass concentrations. They have not been updated since 2000.
Q. Do RRMP water quality guidelines over-ride RMA Schedule 3 guidelines?
A. Yes they do. If a regional plan does not classify a water body via a rule in a Regional Plan, then the standards contained in the Third Schedule are not applicable. However, the guidelines contained in Policy 71 of the Regional Resource Management Plan for dissolved oxygen is the same as the Third Schedule standards for Aquatic Ecosystems.
Q. Are there rules which allow enforcement action against stock in waterways?
A. Stock access to waterways was debated at length during the appeal process to the Regional Resource Management Plan. There was recognition by all parties involved that it is not practical to require all waterways to be fenced to prevent stock access. While the main method that Council uses to deal with this issue remains the non-regulatory land management programmes and self regulation by industry, there is a Stream Disturbance by Stock rule in the Regional Resource Management Plan which contains standards that must be met. It is intended to ensure there is no large scale or prolonged disturbance of the stream bed by stock.
It is enforceable if the standards are breached but defensible evidence would need to be collected to take any prosecution action.
Q. Does HBRC monitor for pathogens?
A. HBRC monitors indicators of pathogens in the State of the Environment monitoring programme. E. Coli is the bacteria monitored with this being the preferred indicator of potential presence of pathogenic organisms. It is noted that some strains of E coli are themselves pathogenic (e g E. Coli 0157 is a known human pathogenic organism) .
CHB monitor both faecal coliforms and E. Coli in the compliance programmes.
Q. Why was the Tapairu Road monitoring site ‘decommissioned’ or not used for recreational water quality monitoring?
A. The state of the environment programme commenced its early life in the 1970's on a rather ad-hoc basis and included sites for all manner of reasons. The frequency of sampling, and the parameters analysed was patchy, and biological monitoring was limited. A push was made in the early 1990's to refine the programme. Council staff at the time (Neil Hudson in association with Glenda Hooper, previous environmental scientists) initiated a review of the network which included initially a wider cross section of sites to determine if correlations between sites was possible. This also overlapped with work done by Graeme Franklin for his Masters thesis on delineating ecosystem types, and Molly Vale of Waikato University on macroinvertebrates in Hawke’s Bay. This was to form the basis of eco-regions for the freshwater systems using macroinvertebrates.
In 1996/7 the first full review was undertaken with a clear separation between recreational, SOE, compliance and investigative sites.
The SOE programme adopted was to enable trends to be identified for representative river types in Hawke's Bay with an upper catchment and lower catchment (near the mouth) being the fundamental minimum to enable catchment change to be identified.
Consent monitoring sites were managed typically by the consent holder with audits undertaken by the Council, in some cases the monitoring continued by the Council until the consent was renewed. Monitoring of the receiving water was then only included in the consent if the AEE was either inconclusive to determine effect (no more than minor) or as part of the submission process it was required.
The programme from 1997 - 2000 included 101 river sites sampled on a quarterly basis with one major catchment sampled monthly, done every five years (areas being sampled on a rotational basis).
In 2000 the consent monitoring sites were removed from the programme in line with the programmes SOE status.
By 2000 recommendations for the modern programme were in effect with the current selection of sites made. Consent monitoring sites also changed with the focus moving from convenient monitoring sites to sites chosen to represent the mixing zone.
In 2000 the Taipairu monitoring site was stopped with the Shag Rock (just below Tamamu Road bridge) site being adopted. Shag Rock is below both Waipawa and Waipukarau Sewage discharges so in regard to accumulative effect is a better mid catchment monitoring site. Although Tamamu bridge had historically been used as the monitoring site Shag Rock had an existing flow station so the council shifted the SOE site to Shag Rock.
In 2003, on the basis of the river environments classification (REC - a nationally recognised method for assisting in SOE site selection), a further review was undertaken. REC was developed nationally to help site selection and to enable meaningful comparisons to be undertaken so you could compare like with like. The review was to ensure that as many REC types were included in the programme as practical, this however did not have much effect on the sites although it did refine the program in some catchment areas. Most of the major site changes were undertaken in 2000, and are a reflection of effective SOE monitoring consistent with sound principles for detecting change in time and space.
The current programme now consists of 67 river sites (including 5 urban streams) with consent monitoring sites being monitored by the consent holder and audited by the Council.
Monitoring is quarterly except for the Tukituki system which is monthly. This is in recognition of potential changes of the catchment in response to landuse change and the ability to detect trends earlier if they are happening.
It is important to note Taipairu Road has not been monitored since 2000 and has not just been dropped recently. Taipairu Road was never monitored for E. Coli. Taipairu Road was not monitored at the road access site but rather at our flow monitoring station that is accessed off Taipairu Road, a further 1 kilometre below the river access point at the end of Taipairu Road.
Consent monitoring by CHBDC picks up monitoring in the Tukituki river 400 metres downstream of the Waipukurau Discharge and 400 metres below Waipawa Discharge (in the Waipawa River). They are monitored monthly for E. Coli amongst other parameters.
Shag Rock has been monitored since 2000 and is better placed for looking at accumulative effects on the Tukituki and also to monitor changes over time in relation to quality changes of the discharge. E. Coli is monitored monthly here. We also monitor E. Coli at Red Bridge on a monthly basis (this is an audit site to enable comparisons with NIWA who also monitor this site as part of the National Rivers WQ Network).
The Tapairu Road site was never a recreational water quality monitoring site. The Recreational Water Quality monitoring programme was developed in conjunction with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and in accordance with the national recreational water quality monitoring guidelines for monitoring programme design. The two sites on the Tukituki River were selected based on those sites being the most popular for contact recreation. The Recreational Water Sites are being reviewed prior to next summer. If Tapairu Rd is found to meet the criteria for Recreational Water Quality monitoring, then it is possible that it could be added.
Q. To what do you attribute the ‘increased’ occurrence of blue-green algae in the Tukituki?
A. We do not consider that there has in fact been an increased occurrence of blue-green algae and specifically Phormidium in the Tukituki River, although that does not preclude some localised bloom occurring. This algae has likely been in the river since the beginning of European times (and probably well before then). River conditions which are favourable to the growth of this algae are prolonged periods of low flows. Typically it is seen in the riffle zone where velocities preclude the filamentous growths from dominating although consequent sloughing of Phormidium matts may then accumulate in eddies or backwaters. To date no toxin production has been identified in the cyanobacteria from the Tukituki River. In the last two years the Tukituki river has had long periods of low flow due to climatic events. The absence of flushing flows will have exacerbated algal growth and the stability of flows encouraged Phormidium matts in the riffle areas, although the Phormidium biomass does not appear any different from previous years.
Q. Does HBRC have specific objectives for water quality in the Tukituki in the future?
The Regional Resource Management Plan contains the following objectives:
OBJ 27 The maintenance or enhancement of the water quality of rivers, lakes and wetlands in order that it is suitable for sustaining or improving aquatic ecosystems in catchments as a whole, and for contact recreation purposed where appropriate.
OBJ 40 The maintenance of the water quality for specific rivers in order that the existing species and natural character are sustained, while providing for resource availability for a variety of purposes, including groundwater recharge.’
There are water quality guidelines in Policy 70 which apply across the entire Hawke’s Bay region:
- The temperature of the water should be suitable for sustaining the aquatic habitat
- The concentration of dissolved oxygen should not exceed 80% of saturation concentration
- The concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen should not exceed 0.1 mg/l
- The concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus should not exceed 0.015 mg/l
- In areas used for contact recreation, the horizontal sighting range of a 200 mm black disc should exceed 1.6 metres
Specific faecal coliform and suspended solids concentrations are set for specified rivers including the Tukituki River.
The target water quality for Tukituki River and tributaries between SH50 and Tamumu Bridge is Faecal Coliforms 200 cfu/100 ml and Suspended Solids of 10 mg/l.
These guidelines apply after reasonable mixing of any contaminant or water with the receiving water and disregarding the effect of any natural perturbations that may affect the water body.
Click here to go to the Regional Resource Management Plan
Q. What measures does HBRC take to monitor biodiversity in the Tukituki?
A. Periphyton and Macroinvertebrate monitoring is undertaken in the Tukituki River both as part of the State of the Environment monitoring (annual) and the CHB oxidation pond consent. It is a measure of the presence and relative abundance of periphyton and insect life in the river. There is also a regional fish monitoring programme that identifies presence absence of species with a number of sites being undertaken in the Tukituki catchment, at this stage it is not an annual programme. The Council does not undertake any terrestrial biodiversity monitoring.
Q. Why doesn’t HBRC open the river mouth to stop the algae re-entering the river when the tide comes in?
A. The Council does open the river mouth when it closes up and causes backwater flooding problems. How long it stays open depends on the swell conditions in the Bay. Any weed in the river should pass through the river mouth if sea conditions allow.
Q. Do references in the data to high rainfall events and raised nutrient levels in the river actually reflect the added ‘overflow’ input from the oxidation ponds?
A. The consent conditions set a maximum volume of effluent that can be discharged per day for 90% of the time. This means for example that in any 100 day period, the discharge may exceed that daily volume in 10 of those days. Pre upgrade, there is also a median flow limit which should not be exceeded for 50% of the time. So rainfall events are provided for to that extent.
However, the quality of the effluent must still meet the standards set in the conditions. During high rainfall events when the river is in flood, the background contaminant level in the river will be higher as a result of runoff from the land and sediment disturbance from the stream bed.
Q. Why doesn’t HBRC assist CHBDC with funding the treatment plant upgrade in the form of a no interest loan (from HBRC’s substantial reserves)?
A. A significant amount of Council’s operating budget comes from the dividends and interest from its investments. These offset general rate funding. Using those reserves, even in the form of an interest free loan, would have a significant impact on Council’s operating budget.
Napier, Hastings and Wairoa councils have funded their wastewater upgrades themselves and are meeting their obligations under the Resource Management Act. Given that, it is not appropriate for all ratepayers of Hawke’s Bay to fund the upgrade of the Central Hawke’s Bay oxidation ponds.
Q. Are regional councils collectively lobbying manufacturers to stop the use of phosphates in detergents?
A. The Ministry for the Environment is reviewing the matter of phosphates in detergents and whether there are any steps that can be taken at a national level.
Q. Are you using the dilution factor in the river above the discharges to achieve the guidelines in the RRMP?
A. The concept of ‘after reasonable mixing’ as provided for in the Resource Management Act for discharges to water does include an element of dilution. The calculation of the effluent quality standards was based on the discharge occurring in low flow conditions, being the worse case scenario.
Q. Does HBRC monitor the quality of the receiving waters at the end of the Waipukurau and Waipawa mixing zones as a condition of the consents?
A. Conditions 22 and 20 respectively relate to the requirement for the water quality to be monitored 400 metres downstream of the discharge points which relates to the edge of the mixing zone. Samples are taken monthly and analysed for suspended solids, temperature, dissolved oxygen, total ammoniacal nitrogen, soluble reactive phosphorus, clarity, E. Coli and faecal coliforms.
Q. If it is monitored as HBRC staff says, then why aren’t the monitoring results for this provided in the other CHBDC monitoring reports?
A. The results of the monthly monitoring of effluent and receiving water monitoring are sent to the Council monthly. The CHBDC is required to do an annual report and report on compliance with the standards. The results are not necessarily included in that report. The HBRC also prepare a compliance report for the consent holder and report on compliance. That report does not contain the monitoring results either. Nevertheless, the results are public information and will be made available to members of the public on request.
Condition 10 is monitored by visual inspection each time the compliance officer visits the monitoring locations, which is several times a year. We also have a database to keep a record of any complaints that are received from members of the public, and this is checked each year when the compliance report is written. Any complaints from the public would also be investigated at the time they are received as well.
The results of the monthly receiving water quality monitoring are reviewed by Council scientists before the compliance monitoring report is written each year, and they are specifically asked to comment on whether the water quality would render the water unsuitable for the consumption by farm animals or cause any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.
Q. If you’re not monitoring the receiving waters how do you know that they are compliant with the contaminant levels of the consent?
A. The receiving water is monitored to confirm that the effect of the discharge on the water quality is as was expected during the consent process. The CHBDC oxidation pond consents do not contain conditions setting water quality standards for the receiving water after reasonable mixing.
Results to date can be found here. An interpretive analysis of those results will be undertaken following receipt of the Consent Holders annual report by the 1 August 2008.
Q. Why isn’t the Council complying with the statutory requirements of section 5 and section 30 of the Resource Management Act (RMA)?
A. Section 30 of the RMA lists the functions of the Regional Council under the RMA. We carry out those functions through the preparation of a Regional Policy Statement, regional plans and by processing applications for resource consents.
Section 5 of the RMA states the purpose of the RMA. Together with section 6, 7 and 8, it comprises Part II of the RMA which must be taken into account during processing of resource consents, along with the objectives and policies in relevant regional and district plans.
Part II was a significant part of Council’s assessment of the CHBDC oxidation pond discharges where environmental effects, and economic and social impacts were weighed up.
The decision of the Hearing Committee was appealed by CHBDC and submitters, Mr Renouf, Mr Dodds, Mr Church Geoff Huggett, Fish and Game NZ, DoC and GD Mason. A number of changes were made to the consent conditions to reach agreement between the parties following presentation of legal and technical evidence by CHBDC, HBRC and some submitters to the Court. The Environment Court considered the information and then issued a decision with those amendments. The time frame for upgrade was not a matter under appeal.
Q. Why does Council weed spray and rake stones along the river?
A. Weed spraying, beach raking and gravel management are part of the Council flood management programme for all of its flood control schemes. Channel spraying only targets willow regrowth ensuring a clean efficient flood channel is maintained free of trees while berm spraying targets noxious plants such as Old Mans Beard, gorse etc. Beach raking also ensures that vegetation does not establish in the river channels by discouraging the formation of islands or other impediments that can threaten edge protection works and encourages the efficient transport of gravel through the system. Gravel accumulation is a major issue in significant areas of the Tukituki River. Gravel management is another important aspect of flood control. Unmanaged accumulations or deficits of gravel can threaten flood control assets, adjoining land and property so is removed in a managed way to lessen this threat.
Q. Does PPCS’s Takapau discharge comply with its consent conditions?
A. This consent authorised a significant discharge of wastewater to land. Grass and crops are generally irrigated with the wastewater but on occasion, irrigation on to bare soil pre planting can occur. It is not expected that prolonged irrigation over bare paddock would normally occur and is not considered good practice. In the event referred to by the speaker at the meeting, land was being irrigated pre-cultivation and sowing for pasture. The irrigators were set at a faster speed than normal (6 cogs instead of 4) and photos were taken of the effluent soaking into the top horizon of the soil. The ponding viewed was in compliance with the consent. PPCS encourages any neighbour with irrigation concerns to contact the site.
Q. Can you explain what the 80th percentile figures for E-coli for the upstream and downstream receiving water monitoring sites mean in lay terms (slide 65 of the presentation?)
A. The 80th percentile figure means that of the number of samples taken in a particular period, 80% of them were below the 80th percentile figure. A median figure means that 50% of the samples taken were below that figure. The 80th percentile is a measure used to preclude the effects of higher flows where it would be expected that high bacterial levels would be present. Flow partitioning or testing for outliers are two other techniques usually employed, however for this presentation the use of percentiles was used principally to simplify the presentation.
Q. Is it because of CHB appealing their consent that the timeframe for the new plant is 2014?
A. No, the upgrade date of 30 September 2014 was not altered as a result of the appeal process.
Q. How many water take consents has HBRC issued or received in CHB? How many consents have been issued and how many more do we intend to issue?
A. In 2003 Council notified all 90 water takes from the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers. These water takes have now been heard by a hearing panel and decisions will be issued over the next 2-3 months. Over 200 submissions were received on the applications with the largest number of submissions from Fish and Game, DoC and Iwi. These organisations have attended the hearings and given evidence to the hearings committee.
Q. Is it true that 37% of the allocated volume for the upper Tukituki being used, and what would the impact be if 100% of the allocation was being used?
A. A figure of 40% of the total allocation to water users for irrigation actually being used is commonly reported where regional councils have made an assessment of actual use based on water meter records and estimates from irrigated areas. The Council crop water allocation methodology is based on the water required in a 1 in 5 year return period drought for surface water and a 1 in 10 year return period for groundwater. This means that during years which are wetter than the 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 year drought, the full allocation will not be required.
With many streams reaching full allocation, there is pressure to ensure that the allocatable volume is used efficiently. This will increase the complexity of water management if water that was not required in any one year was for example transferred to another user for a short rotation annual crop that did not require ongoing irrigation.
The downside of that efficiency is that the actual use of the allocatable volume will increase and the minimum flow will be reached earlier.