Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Affixing Common Seal	Vesting of reclaimed land – Port of Napier Limited: advise Councillors what this related to	AN		The number was a reseal of a document that was originally sealed on 30 May 2007. It was out of time so had to be resealed. It is for the reclamation of land around Port of Napier.
2	Adoption of Annual Report	Councillor meeting attendance – future records to include Hearings, HBRIC Ltd and workshops	LH	immediately	HBRIC Ltd Board of Directors, Workshops, and Hearings columns added to tracking spreadsheet for stats collection and reporting in 2012-13 Annual Report.
3	Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Feasibility	Detailed timeline of the entire process to be pulled together and distributed to Councillors.	GH	24/10/12

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 31 October 2012

SUBJECT: Affixing of Common Seal

Comment

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 179

DP 11967

CT D1/78

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 7

DP 14227

CT G1/25

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 156

DP 12611

CT D4/1095

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 108

DP 6598

CT C2/380

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 1

DP 13640

CT L2/665

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 18

DP 7201

CT B4/928

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.7 Lot 33

DP 14447

CT G2/660

- Transfer

1.1.8 Lot 95

DP 11780

CT M1/1213

- Transfer

1.1.9 Lot 1

DP 7422

CT C4/320

- Transfer

1.1.10 Lot 7

DP 14227

CT G1/25

- Transfer

1.1.11 Lot 61

DP 13897

CT F4/391

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

- Transfer

1.1.12 Lot 219

DP 10728

CT B4/1264

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.13 Lot 2

DP 24417

CT V2/798

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 10% landlord)

1.1.14 Lot 427

DP 11483

CT C1/806

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

1.1.15 Lot 18

DP 7872

CT 200/31

- Transfer

1.1.16 Lot 35

DP 921

CT B3/1154

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(discount 17.5% resides at property)

- Transfer

3575

3576

3587

3577

3578

3579

3580

3584

3581

3582

3585

3588

3589

3598

3590

3591

3592

3593

3597

3594

3595

3596

24 September 2012

11 October 2012

25 September 2012

26 September 2012

8 October 2012

26 September 2012

28 September 2012

9 October 2012

11 October 2012

24 October 2012

12 October 2012

16 October 2012

24 October 2012

17 October 2012

1.2

Adoption of Plan Change 3 (on Site Waste Water)

Change 3 (On-site wastewater) to the Hawkes Bay Regional Resource Management Plan, approved by resolution of the Council on the 29^th August 2012.

3583

28 September 2012

1.3

Deed of Grant of Easement

Lot 11

DP 97

CT C4/780

(Clive River)

3586

10 October 2012

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided;

2.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 31 October 2012

SUBJECT: Tukituki Choices - Responses

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to present the responses that have been received on the Tukituki Choices discussion document for Council’s consideration in its decision-making associated with the Tukituki Plan Change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project.

Council’s approach to the issues in the Tukituki Catchment

2. The Council has been working on a three pronged approach towards managing the land and water issues in the Tukituki Catchment.

3. Council’s first priority has been finding ways to improve summer flows.

4. One way is to increase the river flow at which consent holders would be required to stop taking water. This ‘minimum’ flow can be set for different levels of habitat protection and it is proposed that the Tukituki River warrants a higher level of protection for both longfin eel and trout. This does have economic impacts on existing irrigators, significant in some cases, and a contested process and a long transition time, even if successful is likely with this approach.

5. Another way is to enable and facilitate the collection of high river flows into storage with the migration of some, if not all, existing irrigation from surface and groundwater supplies to stored water. This would result in more natural flow conditions particularly over the low flow period, over and above the flow that would occur even if the minimum flow cut-off is increased.

6. The second priority has been to reduce phosphorus (P) inputs to the river as the most practical way to achieve a reduction in algae growth in the river. The Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater discharges contain high levels of phosphorus, and during summer low flows, it makes up 50-70% of the phosphorus input in the catchment. HBRC has known the river was P limited for a number of years and the consent it issued for the wastewater discharges requires a significant reduction in the P levels by September 2014. While HBRC has actively sought to assist the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to find a technically feasible and financially acceptable land based solution for its municipal wastewater discharges, and even purchased and planted land for that purpose, CHBDC is proposing to reduce the phosphorus in the wastewater through chemical treatment in order to meet the effluent quality limits on the consent.

7. Meeting the new effluent standards will make a significant difference to P concentrations and algal growth in the river.

8. Another source of P is sediment. Stock exclusion from water ways is proposed to minimise the amount of sediment getting into the water. This will improve the water quality for swimming and fishing. Water quality limits will be set for phosphorus and the Council’s land management team will target sub-catchments with high phosphorus levels to minimise sediment discharges and other sources of phosphorus discharges.

9. Thirdly, nitrate concentration in the rivers will be managed to protect aquatic species from nitrate toxicity effects and nitrogen load limits will be set for the catchment. HBRC initiated new research on nitrate toxicity for native fish (inanga) and mayfly which found that these species are more tolerant to nitrate concentrations than rainbow trout and the even more sensitive lake trout ( not found in New Zealand). The proposed levels provide good protection for trout species and given the higher tolerance of inanga, provide an even higher protection to other species.

10. Fourthly, the exclusion of stock from waterways, riparian planting and nutrient management plans required as part of the mitigation measures for the storage scheme will allow stream banks and rivers to recover to provide improved habitat for aquatic species including long fin eel and other native fish species. The contractual arrangement between irrigator and scheme owner would enable access to water to be withheld if these practices as conditions of supply are not met, providing a much easier, faster, and more reliable means of enforcement than available under the Resource Management Act.

Consultation Process

11. The purpose of the consultation was to integrate the Ruataniwha Water Storage project into the options for the future management of land and water in the Tukituki Catchment. It provided four choices to consider, two without storage (A and B) and two with storage (C and D). The choices considered different minimum flow regimes and different water quality limits for nitrate.

12. The consultation on the Tukituki Choices discussion document is an ‘informal’ non-statutory process. Council is not required to do it but it is considered to be good planning practice. Policies and rules for land and water management in the Tukituki River Catchment are to be contained in the Regional Resource Management Plan. This will be done by way of a ‘Plan Change’ which follows a formal statutory process.

13. While Council has been actively engaging with key stakeholders over the last two years specifically around the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, the Tukituki Choices process has provided stakeholders who are directly affected by decisions around land and water management, and the regional community, with an opportunity to comment on possible land and water management options, the role of storage, and indicate what is important to them.

14. The community was advised of this opportunity in a number of ways:

14.1. Direct mailout of the Tukituki Discussion Document to stakeholders

14.2. Public notices in the community newspapers across the region

14.3. Special edition of ‘Our Place’ delivered to all households (55,000) in the region

14.4. Presentations at three public meetings and two breakfast meetings.

15. It was also the topic of discussion at an EIT led public meeting.

16. The community has therefore been well informed of the opportunity to comment on Tukituki Choices.

17. In response to the concerns raised in the meetings about the lack of time to read the material available and the lateness of that material being available, a decision was made to extend the time frame for making comments to 15 October 2012.

Effects on the Community

18. It is relevant to recognise that the implications of land and water management decisions for the Tukituki Catchment are different for different stakeholders.

19. Decisions around water allocation and water quality limits can have financial impacts on people who are currently taking water for their business operations and who are farming the land.

20. If storage proceeds and the benefits on river flows are realised, it is the existing irrigators who will directly face very significant financial costs in return for the much higher level of water security. The local community too would face significant changes.

Number of Responses Received and Analysis of Responders

21. A total of 163 responses have been received. The following table shows an analysis of responders (note that the residential addresses of 15 individual responders was not provided and these have been included in the ‘individual outside the catchment’ category). It provides an understanding of which sectors of the community have responded and an understanding of their key drivers.

Responder Category	Number of Comments Received
Irrigators / Landowners in the catchment	44
Iwi organisations (included Marae)	4
Industry Sector	18
Statutory Organisations (eg TAs, Department of Conservation, Conservation Board, HBF&G)	6
Non-statutory Environmental / Recreational Groups	8
Individuals outside the catchment	127
Total	163

22. Most members of the Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group have made individual responses.

23. Councillors have already received a full set of the responses (3 volumes). These will be available to the public on the website on Monday 29 October and a hard copy can be viewed at the Council office in Dalton St as per normal procedures for agenda papers.

24. A summary of the responses is provided in Attachment 1 to this paper. This will also be available to the public on the website.

25. Requests for copies of the responses have been received from the media. The reason for not making the responses available earlier is so that the Council is able to give them all fair consideration as per normal procedures followed for Long Term Plan or Annual Plan processes.

Summary of Responses

26. A summary of the responses for each community sector is provided below and specific discussion on key matters is provided in the following section.

Irrigators / Landowners

27. This group epitomises the diversity of community that can be found in the Tukituki Catchment with irrigators, farmers, individuals living in the townships and lifestylers, both at the top and bottom of the catchment.

28. The responses were also diverse across the choices including support for Choice D subject to existing irrigators being incentivised to migrate to storage rather than forced, support for Choice B, or a combination of Choice D and B. There was concern over the proposed increase to the minimum flow at the Red Bridge flow monitoring site and the economic impacts of that; concern over the allocation limits and the use of seasonal allocations; the need for large scale rehabilitation of pastoral stream habitats if storage proceeds. There were general queries about the economics of the storage proposal.

29. Sixteen of the 44 responders supported storage. It is significant that the Ruataniwha Water User Group, as one responder representing a significant proportion of the water take by volume, is supportive of Choice D. The Group is keen to work with the Council to identify ways in which the Group could be used to undertake some of the operational elements of water management, and possibly nutrient management as well.

Iwi organisations

30. Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea has not made any specific comments as part of the Tukituki Choices process but has been integral in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project from the outset. The Cultural Values and Uses Report is a key reference report for understanding the impacts of the storage project on cultural values and for developing policy for the Tukituki Plan Change.

31. The feedback that has been received from Te Taiwhenua O Tamatea within Ruataniwha Leadership and Stakeholder Group meetings is summarised as follows:

31.1. Manawhenua want to be an integral part of the process, in a governance and/or ownership sense

31.2. Employment opportunities need to be realised and a strategy put in place now so that Maori are in a position to take up those employment opportunities.

31.3. The mauri of the river is degraded and needs to be restored.

32. Te Runanganui o Heretaunga, representing a number of marae in the Heretaunga rohe, is facilitated through TeTaiwhenua o Heretaunga. This response is comprehensive. It indicates, among others matters, that it does not support the ‘grandparenting’ of existing allocations, questions the adequacy of the water management zones to provide protection of aquatic species, states that higher minimum flows are required to protect species habitat, domestic water supply should be a priority but stockwater should be subject to minimum flow restrictions, on-farm storage should be further evaluated, nitrate leaching limits must be set to 22 kg or less, similar to One Plan provisions, and limits are required for phosphorus. It recommends in the first instance that there is no water storage dam on the Makaroro, that all documents relevant to Tukituki Choices and the Plan Change are subject to a cultural peer review and that if the review is satisfactory and storage is proceeded with, that there is Tamatea and Heretaunga representation at a governance level, the size of the dam is reduced to 60 million cubic metres to reduce risk from the proximity of the Mohaka Fault, that a cultural health assessment is undertaken on a number of reaches and that a resource rental be charged payable to tangata whenua.

33. Nga Marae O Heretaunga questions the identified benefits of the proposed storage project for tangata whenua and focuses on their role as a Treaty Partner in resource management decision-making, how the Maori world view of natural resources is valued and the impending Waitangi Tribunal Claims. This is also supported by Mangaroa Marae.

34. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) supports other responses from relevant tangata whenua, hapu and whanau. It supports and encourages the protection of all its water bodies including aquifers and associated recharge zones. It highlights recent Waitangi Tribunal findings and recommendations and advises that it has invited the Crown to talk with them kanohi ki te kanohi to develop mutually beneficial ways forward in freshwater management and the discussions with Councils will follow.

Industry Sectors

35. The 18 responses from the industry sector included Hawke’s Bay Fruit growers, Hawke’s Bay Wine Growers, HB Chamber of Commerce, McCains, Heinz Watties, Fonterra, Dairy NZ, Fertiliser Research, Federated Farmers, Foundation for Arable Research, Horticulture NZ and Pipfruit NZ.

36. This sector was consistent in its solid support of water storage as being critical to the region’s economic well being and resilience in the face of climate change. Both Choice C and D were favoured and while there was more support for Choice D, many recognised the investment that had been made by existing irrigators to secure a reliable water supply. Voluntary migration to storage or positive incentives for migration were sought.

37. With respect to nutrient management, many industry organisations recognised that they have a role in developing tools that their farmers can use to manage nutrients effectively.

Statutory Organisations

38. Central Hawke’s Bay District Council and Hastings District Council both indicated that Choice D was consistent with their Councils’ strategic direction and wellbeing statements. HDC’s support for Choice D was conditional on the financial business case, the ability to adequately mitigate effects of storage, and addressing the impacts on the security of supply for the Lower Tukituki water users.

39. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board highlighted concerns relating to cyanobacterial blooms, groundwater quality and impacts on potable groundwater supplies, the socio-economic benefits of the storage project and where they actually fall, and the need for a more adequate health impact assessment to support the application for consent.

40. The Department of Conservation understands that Choice D is likely to be the position advanced by Council and is keen to work with the Council on the plan change and possible conditions of any storage application to deliver both environmental and economic outcomes so that they can be in a position to support both projects.

41. Wellington / Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board believes the Council should make protection of biodiversity, aquatic ecosystems and in-stream uses a primary consideration in future water management and should broaden the focus of the plan change to include measures of ecosystem health, indigenous biodiversity and trout habitat quality, and measures that prevent further deterioration in these areas. It also believes that a full ecosystem services study, evaluating the sustainability of the impounded river systems and the cost-effectiveness of the storage project should be undertaken.

42. Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council (HBFGC) supports the identification of values and the setting of water quantity and quality limits to protect those values and agrees that a combination of increased minimum flows, on farm sediment, faecal and nutrient management in appropriate leaching standards, stock exclusion from water bodies, wetland enhancement, wastewater management and implementation of limits are needed. It believes the values identified in the Tukituki Choices is incomplete and/or are not identified to the appropriate level, and that none of the options adequately address the water quality and quantity issues. HBFGC refers to the One Plan as an example to follow.

Non-statutory Environmental / Recreational Groups

43. Hawke’s Bay Water Environment Group has provided a comprehensive and detailed response, with a focus on water quality limits, ecological health and soil quality.

44. Stream 2000 opposes storage because it no longer appears that current allocation will be reduced (refer water allocation assumption in Tukituki Coices) and land use intensification will adversely affect the trout fishery and recreational use of the river.

45. Napier Freshwater Anglers Club is not confident that water storage will fix the current over-allocation problem and is concerned that storage will lead to land uses that require concentrated fertiliser applications. Setting low limits for nitrogen and phosphorus is required to reduce periphyton growth, and stock exclusion and riparian planting should be mandatory.

46. The Central Hawke’s Bay branch of Forest and Bird seeks water quality benchmarks as per the One Plan and proposes that if storage proceeds, farm management plans must be mandatory, the mitigation package must be independently reviewed. It proposes Choice E as a combination of Choice D and B.

47. Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust response sets out a list of what it values in the Tukituki River and the current impacts on those values. It wants Council to place highest priority on environmental outcomes, recognising that only through a healthy environment can good community, social and economic outcomes be achieved. It wants more sustainable agricultural systems and diversity of production options in addition to land based production. It wants the Council to take more time to consider other options and not rush decision-making.

48. Hastings / Havelock North branch of Forest and Bird seeks to maintain and improve current water quality and if storage proceeds, find mechanisms to migrate current irrigators to storage, mandatory use of nutrient budgets, matching land use to soil types, mitigation practices for different farming types, fertiliser plans, soil erosion, stock exclusion from waterways and riparian planting, document storage mitigation initiatives within the consent application, use storage water to alleviate the summer low flow problems.

49. Te Taiao Hawke’s Bay Environmental Forum describes a range of values for the Tukituki and the current threats to those values. It sees land use intensification with or without storage as a future threat to those values. It would like farm plans to be mandatory for existing and new properties that are to be intensively farmed and land use changes to more intensive operations require a consent. It would like to see the timeframe for Tukituki Choices, the Tukituki Plan Change, the Regional Policy Statement and the decision of proceeding with the storage project to be extended by 6 months and for a new option developed for water storage that incorporates improving water quality and restoration of ecologically acceptable low flows in summer. It seeks a public referendum on the decision to proceed with the dam. It would like to see better protection of native habitats (aquatic and terrestrial) in the Tukituki Plan Change.

50. Friends of the Tukituki believes the consultation process has been completely inadequate, that Council has been completely unwilling to take into account the One Plan decision and that Council has refused to negotiate in good faith with Friends of the Tukituki and like-minded groups on minimum environmental standards.

Individuals outside the catchment

51. Responses in this sector of the community were predominantly opposed to storage and/or supported Choice B.

52. A few were neutral, instead commenting on matters that they thought the Council should consider when making its decisions.

53. A number provided well reasoned comments supported by their background or qualifications while others were short statements only.

Specific Matters Raised

Red Bridge Minimum Flow

54. Concern about the increase to the Red Bridge minimum flow was raised by downstream irrigators, Fruitgrower and Winegrower associations and by the Hastings District Council submission. The industry sector indicated it was doing its own analysis of the economic impacts of the increase.

55. HDC queried whether the proposed level of protection for the trout fishery could be reduced in the lower reaches if a higher level of protection was maintained in the upper catchment.

56. Fish and Game Hawke’s Bay’s response was not specific in its position with respect to the minimum flows, simply noting that higher flows were part of the package for environmental improvement.

57. Staff have already engaged Tonkin and Taylor to look at the feasibility of providing water from storage to these downstream users during the low flow periods.

58. There was no concern expressed with regard to the increase in minimum flows in the upstream sites (Waipawa at SH2 and Tukituki at Tapairu Rd) nor regarding the fish species they were based on (longfin eel). It is noted that Te Runanganui o Heretaunga sought a further increase in these minimum flows.

Allocation Limits

59. A number of responses sought a reduction in the amount of water allowed to be taken from the river and groundwater, considering the current state of abstraction to be over allocated.

60. The assumption for allocation in Tukituki Choices was to allow no more water to be abstracted and tightening the annual volume to be taken as a means of achieving that. One responder raised concerns about the seasonal allocation for irrigation.

61. A key difference in the way Council will manage surface water allocation is that the instantaneous rate of take will be the primary allocation tool, with the volume being the second tier allocation threshold.

62. Further technical advice is being sought as to the impacts of the current rate of take from surface water, assuming all takes are occurring at the same time, on the degree of flow alteration (or flat-lining) that may result, and the impact of that on the ecology.

63. With respect to groundwater, an annual allocation is an appropriate parameter to use when managing aquifer systems. The current Regional Resource Management Plan contains no allocation limits with respect to groundwater. Groundwater modelling has provided an indication of the impact of current groundwater takes on river flows and the technical advice received indicates that the impact on low flows and the ecology are not significant but that the level the minimum flow is set at is an important part of that consideration. This advice is also being reconfirmed.

Groundwater Quality

64. There is a concern that the land use changes resulting from irrigation will adversely affect the quality of the Ruataniwha aquifer as a potable drinking water source.

65. The Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Sources of Human Drinking Water) 2007 (NESDW) is intended to reduce the risk of contamination in drinking water sources such as rivers and groundwater. It does this by requiring regional councils to consider the effects of activities on registered drinking-water sources in their decision making, and to ensure that levels of determinands (as specified in the Standards) do not increase over the Maximum Acceptable Values (MAVs) in drinking water after the existing treatment at the time of the consent application or plan change notification as a result of the proposed activities.

66. Nitrate-nitrogen is one of the determinands for potable drinking water. Managing nitrate concentrations for the protection of aquatic species more than adequately provides for the protection of drinking water supplies in rivers, acknowledging that such supplies are generally treated in some form.

67. Nitrate limits will be set for the groundwater aquifers and groundwater capture zones have been identified for the Takapau water supply bore within which land use activities will be managed to avoid adverse effects on this drinking water source.

68. Individual domestic water supplies relying on shallow unconfined groundwater are vulnerable to effects of land use activities.

Choice B

69. The majority of the individuals who responded favoured Choice B. This scenario set a nitrate concentration limit for the river to control periphyton to levels suitable for contact recreation. It requires a significant reduction in the current levels of nitrogen leaching from the land and the economic modelling indicates that this would be at a significant cost to farmers and the local and regional economy ($40 million / year reduction in profit (after interest) and $20 million reduction in Regional GDP relative to current).

70. Responders may not have understood the nature and extent of land use change, and the consequential reduction in the region’s current productive capacity necessary to achieve this scenario. Many appear to have a single focus, being interested only in the environmental outcomes without considering the social and economic implications. All of these factors need to be considered together in any decision-making under section 5 of the RMA and a balance struck between sometimes competing priorities.

Resilience and farming within limits

71. A number of responders pointed to the need for farming systems, farmer behaviour, as well as Council thinking, to change to enable land use activities to be managed within the current limits of the environment and to be adaptable and resilient.

72. It is recognised that farming within water quality limits and the associated need to manage and monitor nutrient losses will require farmers to review their farming systems, whether storage proceeds or not.

73. It will also require the relevant industry sector to develop tools that farmers can use for nutrient management and the industry sector has indicated a willingness and commitment to work with farmers and Council in this area.

74. Farming systems evolve as knowledge increases and technology improves and changes. In light of this knowledge, farmers make choices about how they farm. Council’s role is to set the framework within which they make their farming decisions.

75. Facilitating the provision of storage is one element of building resilience and the Council recognises that ‘smart’ farming systems are required to ensure desirable outcomes are achieved across all the well-beings.

Wind and soil erosion, and frosts

76. Some responders noted that the soils on the Ruataniwha Plains are very susceptible to erosion and that perhaps the focus should be on shelterbelts rather than irrigation to maintain soil and minimise moisture loss. Council acknowledges that many shelter belts have been removed to make way for centre-pivot irrigation over the last ten years or so. Pivots require a clear circle or part circle with nothing above 3-4 metres depending on tower heights. Council will continue to work with farmers to minimise wind erosion, encouraging high wind break plantings where possible and lower internal plantings within pivot circles. Irrigation of these plantings will enable them to establish quickly. New shelterbelts are already starting to be planted by farmers.

77. Good agricultural practices such as minimum tillage will be pre-requisite to access to water from the Ruataniwha Water Storage.

78. Frosts are not considered a significant limitation except for some horticulture. The feasibility studies have been largely based on land uses that are not susceptible to frosts.

Environment Court Decisions on Manawatu-Whanganui Regional Council’s ‘One Plan’

79. A number of responders asked what the implication of the Environment Court decision on the One Plan is on this process and the Tukituki plan change. Hawke’s Bay Fish and Game Council referred to the One Plan as the model to follow for a framework for integrated land and water management and that Council was obliged to take note of it and implement the principles that the Court expressed.

80. While aspects of the proposed water quality framework for the Tukituki catchment will be similar to the One Plan, and it is prudent to take account of the reasoning of the Environment Court to the extent that the environmental issues are similar, Council’s legal advice is that the Council is not under a legal obligation to adopt the outcomes favoured by the Court in all respects, particularly where catchment specific characteristics provide grounds for a different approach. It is considered more important to reflect the need to set limits in a consistent manner reflecting the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. Council should also be mindful of the recommendations from the Land and Water Forum processes.

81. It is important that water management zones / values / water quality thresholds frameworks are based on sound science and management frameworks.

82. It is noted that to understand the land and water management framework for the Tukituki catchment in its entirety, the proposed Tukituki Plan Change will need to be considered alongside the change to the Regional Policy Statement (Change 5), and the rest of the current RRMP.

83. The framework for nutrient water quality limits in the Tukituki plan change will be based on good understanding of the catchment processes underpinned by advanced catchment modelling tools. (It is noted that the One Plan process was not supported by the degree of catchment modelling that is available for the Tukituki catchment.)

84. It is recognised that both nitrogen and phosphorus need to be managed to control periphyton growth to acceptable levels. Based on our knowledge that phosphorus is the growth limiting nutrient in the main stem, phosphorus is targeted for reduction through improved wastewater treatment (which had already been recognised through that regulatory consenting process), through stock exclusion rules to minimise sediment discharges and through soil conservation and good agricultural practices. Nitrogen loads will be managed to ensure nitrate levels in the rivers are within acceptable levels for the protection of fish and invertebrates.

85. It is noted that some major river catchments in the Manawatu-Whanganui region show clear N-limitation (e.g. Rangitikei catchment and, to some extent Whanganui River). Parts of the Manawatu river catchment show N- or co-limitation in summer low flows. With nitrogen being the growth limiting nutrient, reductions in nitrogen leaching will reduce concentrations in the river. However, it is noted that the leaching limits in the One Plan will not actually achieve the water quality limit and therefore the desired outcome of low levels of periphyton growth.

86. The One Plan decision does provide useful discussion on how nitrogen should be allocated to the land. It supports the use of the Land Use Capability system as a framework for spatial allocation.

Engineering Underpinning for Storage Project

87. A number of responders queried/challenged engineering aspects of the Storage Project: including hydrology, ability to refill the reservoir year by year, sedimentation rates, irrigation demand, susceptibility to high intensity weather events (and consequent risk of dam break and catastrophic consequential effects) and costings.

88. Those responders who went into the engineering reports to find support for their issues/concerns quote extracts from those reports out of context or without accompanying qualifications, e.g. quoting the assessed effects of the Dam break Analysis (which are on any view alarming) without discussing or analysing the commentary on how unlikely it is that those effects will occur.

89. One responder quotes extensively from one of the engineering peer reviews on the Water Resources component of the study without apparently appreciating that the peer reviewer was commending on a draft report and that subsequent analysis and refinement of the report largely addressed the reviewer’s initial concerns (refer the ‘Epilogue’ at the end of Appendix J of the Technical Feasibility Report).

90. The iterative nature of the process might be seen as a strength rather than a weakness of the analysis. Likewise, concerns about costings are understandable but fail to take account of the sophisticated analysis that means that cost savings are as likely as cost over-runs and that the latter risk is factored into the economic analysis.

Economics of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project

91. A number of responses queried the economics of the storage project with Response 71 being one of the most comprehensive.

92. This respondent has suggested that the cost of capital (interest) required to transition from pre to post dam options have been ignored in the economic analyses. This is not correct. Different farms have different interest costs. The On-farm Economic Review undertaken by MacFarlane et al adopted a pre interest measure so as to neutralise this variation. Subsequent analysis undertaken by BNZ Advisory explicitly considered the impact of interest costs on the viability of different land use conversions. In addition, the different debt/equity ratios (and resulting interest costs) that apply to individual farm types do not affect the Regional Economic Impact Study results.

93. This respondent has also indicated that the Input Output (I/O) method of calculating regional benefits may be less accurate than the alternative CGE methodology. However, irrespective of the method adopted, the benefits established by the Financial Cost Benefit analysis would remain the same. Admittedly, the use of the I/O Model could affect economic impacts such as employment and, to the extent that these are at the expense of reduced employment elsewhere in the region, then these impacts are indeed overstated. However, the use of regional CGE models as an alternative also has limitations. For instance CGE Models are generally not available at a regional level and the assumptions underlying these models can adversely affect the accuracy of the results they generate.

94. The respondent has stated that the additional costs of converting to irrigation should be compared to the added returns made because of that conversion. We agree and this is the approach actually adopted in the On-Farm analysis completed by MacFarlane et al. This same respondent is of the view that any year in which irrigation water is not required, but has been paid for, will create a loss for the affected farmer. This overlooks the fact that the point of irrigation is not just to fix a deficit between total water available and total water required over a farming year. More important is to set up a more productive and profitable farm system and have the reliability to achieve it every year.

95. The respondent considered that a correct evaluation of any nutrient change should involve an assessment of the pre and post irrigation farm systems and their respective nutrient budgets. The HBRC Project Team commissioned a recent study that followed this approach. The nutrient assessments were undertaken using agricultural management tools available at the time but differ significantly from the results presented by the respondent.

96. The respondent is of the view that lower energy levels in Hawke’s Bay will create limits for optimal production systems. The farm consultant team that undertook the on-farm assessments have intimate knowledge of local conditions and believe that the levels of productivity in the MacFarlane farm budgets are feasible and are currently being achieved by top farmers.

Decision-making process and milestones

97. Some responders sought a decoupling of the plan change process and the consent process for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project. There also continues to be a misunderstanding as to the decision that Council will be making on 31 October 2012 with respect to the Ruataniwha Water Storage, with requests that a public referendum be held.

98. Before Council resolved that the plan change and any consent application for water storage should be determined by a Board of Inquiry via the Environmental Protection Authority, Council considered the strengths and weaknesses of a number of different decision-making models. Having both processes considered by a single decision-making entity enables all the relevant information to be available before final decisions are made on either project and it is still considered the most effective and efficient decision-making process.

99. It is noted that if the Council decides not to proceed with the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, the Tukituki plan change will be heard by a Council Hearing Panel.

100. The decision to be made by the Council at its 31 October 2012 meeting is whether to proceed to the consenting phase of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project, and if the decision is to proceed, to identify what other elements of the project should also be run in parallel.

101. The key decision around Council investing funds into the construction and operation of a Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme will not be made until after the consent and other required authorisations has been gained, the take-up thresholds have been reached and other investors are available. It is recommended that this decision-making process is subject to a special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act (see agenda item 11 more information).

Preferred approach for Tukituki Plan Change

102. 163 organisations and individuals have provided comment on the Tukituki Choices, the Ruataniwha Water Storage and other elements of land and water management for the Tukituki Catchment. Having considered the responses, Council needs to endorse a preferred approach for the Tukituki Plan Change, particularly with regard to the key regulatory aspects for land and water management.

103. The following approaches are presented for Council’s consideration and endorsement for the Tukituki Plan Change:

103.1. Core water allocation limits should be set as generally outlined in the Tukituki choices discussion document, capping allocations to the seasonal requirements of existing consent holders.

103.2. Allowing applications to be lodged to take water for community irrigation schemes over and above the core allocation limits.

103.3. Minimum flow limits should be based on 90% habitat protection for longfin eel for Waipawa River at SH 2 and Tukituki at Tapairu Rd, transitioning from the existing minimum flow over a 3-5 year period.

103.4. Minimum flow limit for Tukituki at Red Bridge should be based on 90% habitat protection for trout, recognising the regional significance of the trout fishery, and transitioning from current over a ten year period to recognise economic impacts.

103.5. Recognising phosphorus as the limiting nutrient in the mainstem of the river system and setting in stream phosphorus targets as a means of reducing periphyton growth.

103.6. Recognising that managing nitrogen for controlling periphyton would at best deliver marginal additional environmental benefit compared to those resulting from a reduction in phosphorus and would require such a large reduction in existing nitrogen leaching levels and that it would have an attendant unacceptable level of economic impact on the landowners, and the district. The position therefore of both Council staff and external science advisors is that management of nitrogen to levels required to reduce periphyton is not the most environmentally or economically effective way of reducing periphyton growth and the focus should be on controlling phosphorus for periphyton control coupled with managing nitrate to avoid toxicity effects.

103.7. Managing nitrogen for nitrate toxicity based on a 95% ANZECC protection threshold for zone 1, and the 90% ANZECC protection threshold for zones 2, 3 and 5. The 90% species protection level correspond to a very low risk of a minor effect on trout and a negligible risk of insignificant effect on native fish and invertebrate species and are thus considered environmentally conservative.

103.8. Managing nitrogen and phosphorus at current in-stream nitrate levels for Zone 4.

103.9. Setting other water quality limits to maintain the life supporting capacity of freshwater bodies and associated ecosystems.

Decision Making Process

104. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

104.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

104.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

104.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

104.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons and organisations who made comments on Tukituki Choices, all residents and ratepayers within the Tukituki River Catchment and all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

104.5. Options that have been considered included proceeding to the formal statutory process without providing an opportunity for the wider community to comment on land and water management options with or without storage. Tukituki Choices is a non statutory process that Council considered was important to underpin the formal processes and to guide policy development for the Tukituki plan change.

104.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

104.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Receives the report on Tukituki Choices – Responses.

3. Acknowledges the effort that the 163 organisations and individuals have made in taking the time to read the Tukituki Choices document and supporting reports, attend public meetings and to prepare responses for Council’s consideration.

4. Considers the responses as part of the information to be taken into account for the decisions on the Tukituki Plan change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project.

5. Having considered the responses, endorses the following key approaches for the development of the Tukituki plan change:

5.1. Setting water allocation limits as generally outlined in the Tukituki choices discussion document;

5.2. Setting minimum flow limits based on 90% habitat protection for longfin eel for Waipawa River at SH 2 and Tukituki at Tapairu Rd, transitioning from current over a 3-5 year period.

5.3. Setting minimum flows for Tukituki at Red Bridge based on 90% habitat protection for trout, transitioning from current over a ten year period,

5.4. Allowing applications to be lodged to take water for community irrigation schemes over and above the core allocation limits

5.5. Recognising phosphorus as the limiting nutrient in the mainstem of the river system and setting in stream phosphorus targets as a means of reducing periphyton growth

5.6. Recognising that managing nitrogen for controlling periphyton would at best deliver marginal additional environmental benefit compared to those resulting from a reduction in phosphorus and would require such a large reduction in existing nitrogen leaching levels and that it would have an attendant unacceptable level of economic impact on the landowners, and the district. The position therefore of both Council staff and external science advisors is that management of nitrogen to levels required to reduce periphyton is not the most environmentally or economically effective way of reducing periphyton growth and the focus should be on controlling phosphorus

5.7. Managing nitrogen for nitrate toxicity based on a 95% ANZECC protection threshold for zone 1, and the 90% ANZECC protection threshold for zones 2, 3 and 5. The 90% species protection level correspond to a very low risk of a minor effect on trout and a negligible risk of insignificant effect on native fish and invertebrate species and are thus considered environmentally conservative

5.8. Managing nitrogen and phosphorus at current in-stream nitrate levels for Zone 4.

5.9. Setting other water quality limits to maintain the life supporting capacity of freshwater bodies and associated ecosystems.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Summary of Comments

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 31 October 2012

SUBJECT: Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Feasibility

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to enable Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) to debate and determine whether or not to progress with:

1.1 A consent application for this project

1.2 Procurement process for project design and construction, and financing

1.3 Negotiating irrigator up-take and project investment.

2. Should HBRC determine it wishes to progress with the consent application, then the following steps would be initiated:

2.1. The project and its costs to-date would be transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC Ltd)

2.2. The project team and other leadership capacity as determined necessary to complete the following developmental stage would need to be transferred, contracted and/or seconded to HBRIC Ltd the duration of that phase specifically

2.3. That advances be made to HBRIC Ltd consistent with the provisions in HBRC’s Long Term Plan 2012-22, to fund the related tasks for phase 2 of the project through the 2012 – 2013 financial year and the first half of the 2013 – 2014 financial year.

3. Should HBRC determine that it does not wish to proceed with the consent application, then the recommendation is that the project cease at this phase and expenses incurred to-date be recorded as a loss against the investment account specifically, which is consistent with the decision made by HBRC in December 2009.

4. HBRC would need to continue with its proposed plan change for the Tukituki catchment, though the associated Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) processes would be abandoned, as the rationale for the EPA decision making is focused on a project of national significance. A plan change on its own would not meet this criteria.

5. For the sake of clarity, the project may or may not be granted consent and depending on the outcome of that process, the project may or may not proceed, subject to positive or negative outcomes of the processes outlined below.

Related Workstreams

6. Finalisation of all other aspects of the concurrent work programme will obviously remain contingent upon a consent being granted. These include:

6.1. The final consolidation of off-farm investment (i.e. the investment required to build a storage dam and distribution system) and the related ownership model

6.2. Further optimisation of scheme design; both engineering and environmental

6.3. The finalisation of a contract to build any such infrastructure, including an assessment of its affordability vis-a-vis costing estimates established via the feasibility phase

6.4. The consolidation of contracts with current and future irrigators for the delivery of secure water

6.5. Determination of the value of hydro-electric power generation and supply

6.6. Alignment of the food processing sectors, irrigators, and the proposed water storage scheme

6.7. The ability of the storage scheme to assist with materially improved river flow regimes through water short summer months, as at the time the infrastructure build might be complete

6.8. A further material factor of direct relevance to the consent will be the final decision making for the proposed Tukituki catchment plan change, which will set the regulatory limits within which the scheme would have to operate.

Context

7. The Tukituki catchment is subject to low flow events in both major tributaries of the main stem of the river on a regular basis through the summer period. Significant irrigation utilising both surface and ground water resources takes place during the times of the year when the water has highest value for the environment, river ecology and recreational users. This results in all values being compromised.

8. Water storage seeks to store high flow water for irrigation use thereby offering relief for the river and its other users during summer dry periods. As currently framed, the storage proposition would store approximately 5% of the water within a typical annual total catchment hydrological balance.

9. Water storage has been considered as part of the potential framework for overall water management in Hawke’s Bay for generations; however the drought years of 2006-2009, and the pressure of both current irrigation and demand for more, brought the issue to a head in 2008.

Background

10. In 2008, HBRC initiated a number of projects in parallel, including substantial investment in the water resource science area, establishment of water user groups and water demand management, establishment of significant community engagement process both at a regional and catchment scale, and investment in water storage pre-feasibility and feasibility processes in two catchments.

11. The clear intention of HBRC from the outset has been to seek to deliver both environmental and economic wins for the catchment, its residents, and for the region.

12. In the case of the Tukituki Catchment, the prefeasibility study was undertaken between 2008 and 2009. The results of this high level assessment suggested a storage scheme was worth progressing to a further feasibility stage. Subsequently in December 2009, HBRC, with initial support from the Sustainable Farming Fund, committed to an advanced prefeasibility phase with the initial stage of that project being to assess in detail the storage sites.

13. Of significance at the completion of that process was that storage at the scale identified in prefeasibility (multiple off-river storage dams) was problematic from a geotechnical and energy cost perspective. The highly fragmented nature of the foundation material throughout the area and the need to pump water into storage sites called into question the immediate and long-term economic viability of that project configuration. Commencing in January 2010, two in-tributary sites were then investigated through the full feasibility phase, with one being discounted on the basis of foundation geotechnical issues.

14. The decision was therefore made to focus on one large site on the Makaroro River; this being one of 17 tributaries in the catchment. Detailed work was undertaken on other engineering issues such as water distribution and infrastructure costs, as well as environmental effects and benefits and social and cultural affects and benefits. In more recent times, as the project definition and scope has refined, the financial and economic feasibility aspects have been a key focus also.

15. Questions have been raised relating to small scale storage (on-farm), and whilst applicable in some circumstances, notably for buffer water for short-term demand, the feasibility project has focused on a project of community or regional scale as this is primarily seen as a more holistic and ultimately economic way of managing water to multiple benefit across the catchment.

16. Therefore, it is the project as defined in the 26 September 2012 report to HBRC for which a resolution to proceed to consent application is being sought.

17. HBRC has applied very significant resource to community engagement processes over this period; including development of the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy, supporting the Ruataniwha Stakeholder and Project Leadership groups over two and a half years, and latterly preparing the scenarios discussion document “Tukituki Choices” for public comment prior to making any decision to proceed to consent application for the proposed storage project.

18. Paragraphs 46-57 of this report contain further commentary regarding the community engagement and decision making process in the context of both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act.

19. In summary, should the project proceed further, then both HBRC and HBRIC are in effect moving the project to the ultimate peer review stage in the first instance in relation to its authorisation or otherwise under the Resource Management Act via the EPA; and secondly for testing its ultimate financial feasibility one way or the other through its assessment for investment and credit worth, by both other public and private sector investors, banks, food processing sector organisations and current and potential future irrigators.

HBRIC Ltd Role

20. Concurrent with a consent application, should the decision be made to proceed, the following work-streams would commence via HBRIC and or a subsidiary of HBRIC:

20.1. HBRIC would contract with the Ministry of Primary Industries for related Irrigation Acceleration funding (as per the project budget – refer to Attachment 1)

20.2. Application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to call-in the consent application would be made

20.3. Development of detailed resource consent applications and associated Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) documents and supporting technical reports and draft consent conditions

20.4. Further optimisation of engineering and environmental aspects of the project as currently laid out in the 26 September 2012 feasibility report

20.5. Further development of the proposed ownership model and the terms and conditions of investment in conjunction with parties who have expressed interest

20.6. Further refinement and establishment of the actual detailed design and build process for the storage and distribution infrastructure and its refined cost based on submissions by contractors

20.7. Contingent negotiations with current and future irrigators for the delivery of secure water

20.8. Contingent negotiations with parties wishing to purchase hydro-electric power

20.9. If consents are granted, and other contingent negotiations are satisfactorily completed, HBRIC would make a recommendation to HBRC with regard to either proceeding with the project or deferring. At that time HBRC would need to further consider its own capital investment in the project and its associated ownership structure

20.10. HBRC will also need to assess the proposed capital structure and capital requirements in line with its LTP configuration as of June 2012, and it is suggested that a further consultative process to determine whether or not to proceed, if consents are granted, should be actively considered.

Tukituki Choices

21. The commentary in Tukituki Choices from the Ruataniwha Water Users Group (RWUG), production sectors, and from Statutory Authorities with roles in economic development, supported storage; and of the two options C and D, on balance most favoured option D on the basis that transferring current irrigation takes to stored water had a significant positive environmental benefit for the river in that it directly addressed the flow regime issue. Possibly of most significance is the position of the RWUG as representing many of the current irrigators and parties most directly and immediately affected by any change to the status quo.

22. Also of note were that most of these submitters expressed qualifications of which the more notable include:

22.1. That transition processes, including incentives for irrigators, will be critical

22.2. An interest in being actively involved in the drafting of consent conditions

22.3. A variety of views on environmental issues such as nutrient limits and management, and some suggesting those irrigators downstream of Red Bridge should be considered separately.

23. A large number of individual submitters opted for option B; that being no storage and a move to arguably a singular focus on the environment.

24. Some submitters, notably those from Forest and Bird, have reservations regarding storage but qualified this view by suggesting if storage were to proceed then the environmental effects would be their predominant focus.

25. Iwi views were mixed, ranging from opposition to support, and in regards to those expressing support, an unequivocal view that mana whenua will need to be integrated into governance and have a key role in setting consent conditions should the project proceed.

26. In view of HBRC’s approach towards managing land and water issues in the Tukituki Catchment, which focuses on ways to improve summer flows, reducing phosphorus inputs to reduce periphyton growth, and managing nitrates for aquatic species protection, the following environmental issues need to be explicitly addressed so as to deliver certainty for all parties:

26.1. Flow regime migration of consents and augmentation of flows in transitional years

26.2. The management plan for phosphorous mitigation, stock exclusion from waterways and riparian management

26.3. The management framework for managing to nitrogen limits and how that is delivered operationally and contractually via the storage scheme

26.4. Consent conditions relating to mitigation measures associated with the storage reservoir.

27. Whilst the financial analysis has accounted for the costs of much of this work, further refinement of budgets will be necessary as the project is refined and optimized, assuming it proceeds to the next phase. Of particular note is that the financial model at its current stage of development internalises the costs of flow restoration as envisaged via option D. A rough assessment of the economic value, as opposed to financial value, at the regional scale is approximately $50 million per annum; that being the difference in assessed value between options C & D, assuming water is fully taken up. HBRC via its Long Term Plan has also signalled an intention to move half of its Regional Landcare Scheme budgets into dealing with the effects of intensified land use.

28. To further progress the consent conditions, two parallel tasks will be necessary including: the development of any such conditions via a consent conditions working group; and a task involving the financial modelling of the scenarios and agreements reached.

Financial Implications

29. The financial implications outlined in this section relate to the costs associated with the four workstreams that will be undertaken through the consent application phase of the project. These are summarised as:

29.1 Regional Policy Statement

29.2 Tukituki Plan Change

29.3 Ruataniwha Water Storage

29.4 EPA Consenting Process.

Budget Summary

30. The table attached to this paper provides a summary of the total cost of the above workstreams should the decision to proceed to the consent application phase be made.

HBRC

31. It is assumed that should the decision be made to proceed to the consent application phase, that current staffing budgets will be sufficient to complete the Regional Policy Statement and Tukituki Plan Change work that falls within Council’s remit. However, due to an accelerated work programme, there will be an impact on the LTP as a result of increased external costs.

32. Additional funding from HBRC for consultancy work in the region of $87k for 2012/13 will be required to complete the Regional Policy Statement and Tukituki Plan Change phases of work. Additional consultancy work in the region of $280k is also required for the EPA consenting process, which has been budgeted in the ‘out’ years of the LTP. Over the next few weeks the budgets provided for consultancy work in the LTP to cover the strategy and planning work programmes will be reassessed to reduce this exposure and cover this shortfall.

HBRIC Ltd

33. The amounts outlined in the appended table that relate to HBRIC, being $3,208,180 in 2012/13 and $2,062,500 in 2013/14, fall within the funding amounts set out in the 2012‑2022 LTP.

Transfer of Feasibility Costs to HBRIC Ltd

34. Total costs incurred to the end of the feasibility phase of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project total approximately $5,925,000. The total costs include all those costs incurred in undertaking prefeasibility, advanced prefeasibility, feasibility, and land purchase ($400k). This total also includes additional costs of $280,000 for the extended July/August 2012 period of the project relating to unexpected complexities associated with the land use intensification study, optimisation opportunities, additional public and stakeholder meetings, and production of the final feasibility report. The Ministry of Primary Industries has agreed to provide an additional $140k to contribute to this overrun on the existing feasibility budget.

35. The Ministry of Primary Industries has provided funding throughout the feasibility phase of the project which totals $2,373,055. This leaves a net total of approximately $3,551,945 to be transferred to HBRIC Ltd should HBRC agree to proceed to the consent application phase of the project.

36. One of the assumptions of the LTP was that there would be interest charged on the feasibility costs that were transferred across to HBRIC Ltd upon the progression to the consent application phase of the project. This paper proposes that no funding costs will be incurred by HBRIC, either on the transferred feasibility costs or those costs associated with the consent application phase, before the completion of the consenting process.

37. The impact on the LTP, if the decision is made not to require funding costs to the end of the consenting process, is $300k for 2012/13 and $215k for 2013/14. These amounts are calculated using an assumed cost of capital of 5% in 2012/13 and 5.5% in 2013/14. Given that projected income from Council’s investments are $11m in 2012/13 and $12m in 2013/14, work will be undertaken through Council’s 2012/13 reforecast and 2013/14 Annual Plan to reduce this exposure and to inform recommendations to fund these shortfalls.

Critical Timelines

38. The proposed timeline for seeking resource consent for the RWS Project is influenced by the Plan Change process, current consent expiry dates, and to a lesser extent, local and central government terms.

39. The Gantt chart appended as Attachment 2 highlights the key activities and timelines associated with community engagement undertaken to-date, post-feasibility Project optimisation, changes to the Regional Policy Statement, and the proposed EPA process associated with the RWS Project and Tukituki Plan Change.

40. Of particular note are key planning dates leading up to the EPA process, including:

40.1. The Tukituki Plan Change workshop with the Regional Planning Committee on 7 November 2012.

40.2. HBRC’s decision point regarding adoption of the Tukituki Plan Change for notification – aiming for 28 November 2012 but may need to extend to the HBRC Council meeting on 12 December 2012.

40.3. Notification of the Plan Change – tentatively 5 December 2012 or alternatively 12 January 2013.

40.4. If the 12 January Plan Change notification date is assumed, the submission period will close on 8 February 2013. The Minister’s decision to call-in the Plan Change would need to be made within five working days of the close of submissions. If the EPA calls in the Plan Change application, it will be notified again.

40.5. Application to the Minister for the Environment to call-in the RWS Project has been tentatively scheduled for January 2013, on the basis that this allows sufficient time for the Minister to make a decision within the timeframes of the Plan Change process; and therefore allowing both applications to be heard together.

40.6. The EPA process requires consideration of the applications and a final decision within 9-months of notification. If the applications are called-in in February 2013, a decision should be made by November 2013. It is likely that a draft decision on the RWS Project will be available sooner.

Transition Considerations for Current Consent Holders

41. There are some 51 surface water consents, 20 stream depleting groundwater consents, and 12 non-depleting groundwater consents due to expire in May 2013. A further 24 consents are due to expire in 2014, and 46 in 2015. These consents need to be managed under a replacement process.

42. All consent holders have been contacted in writing advising them to seek replacement consents if required before November this year to allow them to continue to operate under RMA S124 rights.

43. HBRC’s Resource Management Group has signalled to the consent holders that have consents expiring next year that policy development is likely to see a change to minimum flows and allocation that may affect their consent replacement process. Staff have indicated that we would be seeking to use consent duration as the preferred tool to transition them into the new policy rather than reviewing them. Staff have also indicated that as far as practicable we will be looking to have the consent replacement process reflect the policy at the time we process them.

44. If the RWS Project proceeds to the phase where consents are sought, Consents staff are likely to recommend a consent term for the replacement consents that is significantly shorter in duration than if the RWS Project is not progressed. The transition time with the RWS option would need to realistically reflect the time required to consent and then build storage and associated infrastructure and conversely the transition period without storage would need to reflect sufficient time to allow businesses to adapt to potentially significantly less reliable water availability.

45. HBRC staff are aware that there is a group of consent holders who are potentially significantly affected by the proposed higher minimum flows at Red Bridge. These consent holders would be subject to the same transition process as other consent holders. There is a process underway to explore the options for providing them access to stored water.

Commentary on HBRC Decision Making and Engagement Processes to Date

46. The recently concluded consultation process surrounding the Tukituki Choices document provided a further opportunity for engagement with the regional community as to options for management of the Tukituki catchment, including two options whereby the Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme would be available to new irrigators.

47. Notable within that feedback is broad support from relevant industry sector representatives and (perhaps most notably) landowner groups for these options (C and D).

48. It is acknowledged however that there is also a range of responses raising concern about the extent of consultation to this point, and requesting deferral of any further decision, to allow the public more time to consider the information presented to it to-date surrounding the project and plan change.

49. Some responses to Tukituki Choices go so far as to request a referendum as to whether the project should proceed.

50. The public has certainly been presented with a substantial body of sometimes quite complex information on issues ranging from on-farm economics to engineering, water modelling and ecology. Nevertheless the number, depth, breadth and range of responses received demonstrates that the consultation process to date has been effective, and substantially served its purpose of enabling HBRC to consider the views and preferences of those affected or interested in the issue. Simply put, all issues and perspectives are “clearly on the table”.

51. The process to this point has been robust, and legal advice received regarding the process of consultation and community engagement to date confirms that view.

52. Bearing in mind the nature of the decision being made on 31 October 2012, which is not whether to actually proceed with the project itself, but simply whether to progress consent applications for it (the “ultimate peer review stage” mentioned earlier), no useful purpose would be served by any further delay at this stage.

53. Considering also:

53.1. The process of stakeholder engagement associated with development of the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy 2011 (key elements of which are incorporated into RPS Change 5 that has been notified)

53.2. The process of stakeholder engagement associated with the RWS project itself (as summarised in Section 4 of the Feasibility Report presented to HBRC at its 26 September 2012 meeting)

53.3. The use of the special consultative procedure as to formation of HBRIC, and subsequently preceding the Long Term Plan resolution regarding the Ruataniwha Water Storage project (resolution 37 set out at paragraph 41 of the report presented to the 26 September meeting)

53.4. Having regard to that resolution, that no commitment of ratepayer or HBRC sourced funds to investment in actual infrastracture is being made at this stage (and there would not be until the project is consented, and is demonstrated to be bankable with financial commitment from other investment partners compatible with HBRIC Ltd)

53.5. That the EPA/BOI process provides the very opportunity through which any groups or individuals concerned about the social, environmental, cultural, or broader economic dimensions of the project can fully air those views and test the body of expert and peer review opinion commissioned by HBRC to date

53.6. The EPA/BOI process provides a further robust and fully independent opportunity for the merits of the RWS project and the proposed plan change for the Tukituki catchment to be extensively evaluated around the issues some groups and individuals responding to Tukituki Choices seek to contest

53.7. The substantial degree of consensus recorded in the Feasibility Report (section 4) and, amongst the range of divergent views expressed, the degree of support for the water storage scheme in responses to Tukituki Choices from relevant industry sector and representative groups (along with a commitment to work collaboratively on the project with HBRC from the Department of Conservation as a key stakeholder with a direct and specific ecological mandate), which can all be considered alongside and against the expert assessments summarised in the Feasibility Report.

54. HBRC has clearly discharged its obligations to consult so as to be in a position to give consideration to the views and preferences of the interested and affected public, and having regard to the significance of the decision actually before it, to the extent required under both the Resource Management Act 1991 and Local Government Act 2002. It may safely and reasonably proceed to both initiate a plan change and make applications for resource consents for the project accordingly.

55. As noted above, all HBRC is potentially committing to now is to commence the process through which interested people and organisations can test the assumptions made in the numerous reports that are in the public domain, and within the Tukituki Choices document itself. There is to hand however, what the Project Team and Leadership Group consider to be a robust body of information against which a reasonable and informed decision to proceed with consenting of the project can now be made. No substantive purpose would be served through extending this stage of the consultation process accordingly.

56. Finally, our legal advice is that provided HBRC retains an open mind relative to its decision on 31 October 2012 as to whether to proceed with the plan change and resource consent applications for the project, having regard to the Feasibility Report, Tukituki Choices and the responses to it, and even if members of the public were of the view that HBRC was predisposed to progressing the project, that would not amount to unlawful predetermination.

57. Further, the prospect of any successful challenge to a decision to proceed to seek resource consent applications (and progress a plan change) through the fully public processes of the RMA is tenuous against the background of factors outlined above.

Decision Making Process

58. HBRC is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

58.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

58.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

58.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of HBRC’s policy on significance. The costs for the consent process for the RWS Project are included in the Long Term Plan.

58.4. The persons affected by this decision are all landowners and irrigators within the potential irrigation command area for the RWS Project, all residents and rate payers within the Tukituki Catchment, the primary sector, industry, and the regional community at large. Tukituki Choices has been a non-statutory consultation phase to assess feedback from these stakeholders.

58.5. The Ruataniwha Water Storage Feasibility Project has been a comprehensive process of assessing environmental, economic, social, and cultural feasibility. Options included consideration of numerous storage sites before finalising one site. The option now is to proceed to the consenting phase or not. If the decision is to proceed, a statutory process involving formal submissions will be required.

58.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

58.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, HBRC can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (HBRC) adopted policy on significance and that HBRC can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

Either:

2. Approves the Ruataniwha Water Storage project proceeding to the next stage of the project which would cover resource consent applications, procurement process, and further work on irrigator take-up and project investment.

3. Transfers the responsibilities for progressing the project to the conclusion of the resource consent application phase to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) Ltd, including those responsibilities as the applicant for the required resource consents.

4. Along with the transfer of responsibility for the next phase of the project from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd:

4.1 transfers the costs of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project covering the first phase, namely the feasibility phase and land purchase of $400,000, to HBRIC Ltd; this transfer being estimated at $3.55m (net of Ministry for Primary Industries funding).

4.2 Makes further advances to HBRIC Ltd to cover the costs of the next phase of the project, which will cover the period up to the end of the consent process estimated to be by 31 December 2013. These advances will cover HBRIC Ltd’s costs relating to the consent application, procurement process and further work on the irrigator take-up and project investment. It is noted the advances required have been estimated to be in the region of $3.2m for 2012/13 and $2.1m in 2013/14 (up to 31 December 2013).

4.3 Notes that the advances to be paid from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd as set out above have been provided for in HBRC’s Long Term Plan 2012-22.

4.4 Notes that interest on the advances set out above will not be required to be paid by HBRIC Ltd until the completion of the consenting process and then will only be paid if a decision is made to proceed with continued investment in the Ruataniwha Water Storage project.

5. Notes that HBRIC Ltd will undertake to report back to HBRC at the end of the consent process with a recommendation on whether or not HBRC should proceed to invest further in the Ruataniwha Water Storage project and, if so, under what terms and conditions further investment will be made. If HBRC decides to continue investing in this project then the decision will be subject to a further special consultative process.

6. Notes that should a decision be made by HBRC not to continue with investment in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project subsequent to the completion of the consent process, there will be a need for HBRIC Ltd to assess the extent of any costs incurred to date that will need to be written off and claimed as a tax deduction in their books.

Or:

2. Does not proceed to the next phase of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project and that the project ceases, and expenses incurred to date estimated at $3.5m (net of Ministry for Primary Industries contribution) are subsequently recorded as a loss against the investment account, this write off action being consistent with the resolutions made by HBRC in December 2009.

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Water Initiatives

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View	RWS Project Budget
2 View	RWS Timeline

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 31 October 2012

SUBJECT: 2012-13 Annual Plan Progress Report to 30 September 2012

Reason for Report

1. This Annual Plan Progress Report is an abridged report and covers the first three months of the 2012/13 financial year ending 30 June 2013. The report consists of commentary on financial results to 30 September 2012 and various financial reports.

Summary of the Financial Position to 30 September 2012

2. The actual result covering the Council’s general funded operations for the first three months of 2011/12 is a deficit of $298,315. This compares with the Annual Plan budget deficit of $704,490 and forecast deficit of $704,490 for the full year.

Comment on Financial Results for the Three Months to 30 September 2012

Groups of Activities

3. This report establishes that the net expenditure on groups of activities for the first three months is 22% of the budgeted net funding requirement, as against an equal monthly pro-rata comparative of 25%. The comparative figure for the three months to 30 September 2011 was 27%.

4. Strategic Planning at 22% shows net expenditure in projects is running behind the expected pro-rata percentage. These activities are expected to pick up in the coming months.

5. Land Drainage and River Control at 19% shows overall expenditure in projects is running behind the expected pro-rata percentage. This is mainly due to the timing of projects with increased costs expected as the projects progress in the summer and autumn months. The exception to this is the Makara Flood Control Scheme where the net funding requirement has doubled compared to budget due to dam repairs.

6. Regional Resources at 21% shows overall expenditure in projects is running behind the expected pro-rata percentage. This is mainly due to the timing of projects with increased costs expected as the projects progress especially in regards to consultancy and lab testing. A large portion of time has been spent on the Tukituki choices project during the first quarter of the financial year, and it is anticipated that the other science projects included in the budget will accelerate during the reminder of the year.

7. Regulation shows a net expenditure of 34% of budget. Expenditure on regulation is in-line with budget at 23%, however billing for consents and compliance is below budget as the majority are billed at the end of the year.

8. Biosecurity shows a net expenditure of 17%. This is mainly due to the timing of projects with increased costs expected as the projects progress in the summer and autumn months.

9. Emergency Management shows a net expenditure of 12% of budget. This is due to projects such as fault line mapping, tsunami inundation mapping and CDEM group exercises only using a small portion of their budgets. These projects will progress substantially in the second half of the year.

10. Transport shows a net expenditure of 31% of budget. Expenditure has not yet been matched against NZTA funding which will be received in subsequent months.

11. Operations Group reports a deficit of $22,240 for the three months to 30 September 2012. This is below expectations due to lower than expected turnover on all job costed work, weather delays on works not allowing major plant to get active and 19% productive time compared to a budget of 25%.

Regional Income

12. Total regional income represents 21% of the budgeted net funding contribution for the first three months of the financial year, as against a pro-rata of 25%. The main issues in regional income are:

Investment Company

12.1. The returns budgeted to be received from investments in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro water investments have not been achieved for the first three months of this financial year. The LTP budgeted for a minimum return of 6% on the advances to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) for investment in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro projects. At this stage of the year Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has not made a decision as to whether to proceed with these projects to Phase 2 which will include consenting through the Environmental Protection Agency and further design work. When this decision is made the funding costs on advances to HBRIC Ltd will need to be addressed.

Other Investments

12.2. Napier leasehold land rental revenue has been budgeted at $935,000 for the six months ending 31 December 2012. Subsequent to this date it is anticipated that HBRC will approve the sell down of leasehold cash flows and the revenues received from leasehold land rentals will be used to pay the party that have purchased the continuing cash flows. Accordingly the expectation would be for 50% of the budget representing six months’ cash flows from rentals would be earned at 30 September 2012. This has not been achieved as the number of freeholdings undertaken under Council’s discount policy to lessees exceeds the provision in the Annual Plan. It is further anticipated that the receipts from these additional sell downs will increase Council’s investment income from interest.

12.3. Interest on investment term deposits is tracking at 11% instead of a pro-rata of 25%. The main reason for this is the annual interest budget assuming that cash available for investment will increase on 31 December 2012 by between $45m - $50m as a result of the sell down on Napier leasehold land cash flows.

Other Activities

12.4. The Disaster reserve interest and dividends shows a large negative for the three months. This is due to the increasing cost of commercial insurance cover for disaster damage being paid within the first three months of the financial year but being funded from dividend and interest from the Regional Disaster Damage reserve over the 12 months period.

General Funding for Capital Projects

13. The general funding requirement for capital projects is $64,750 or 20% of budget and in line with pro-rata expectations for this time of year.

Heatsmart Progress Report

14. The following table provides updated figures representing the progress made in the allocation of clean heat grants and loans, and loans for insulation as part of the Heatsmart programme.

VOLUMES

Loan Type	2012/13		3 Months to 30 September 2012
	LTP		Pro Rata		Actual
	Budget	Reforecast	Target	Actual	Over Budget
	Volumes	Volumes	Volumes	Volumes	Target 25%
Insulation Loans	600	600	150	229	38%
Clean Heat Loans	450	450	113	124	28%
Clean Heat Grants	300	300	75	273	91%
TOTAL	1,350	1,350	338	626	46%
EXPENDITURE (EXCL GST)
Loan Type	2012/13		3 Months to 30 September 2012
	LTP		Pro Rata		Actual
	Budget	Reforecast	Target	Actual	Over Budget
	$0	$0	$0	$0	Target 25%
Insulation Loans	1,140	1,140	285	405	36%
Clean Heat Loans	1,255	1,255	314	304	24%
Clean Heat Grants	183	183	46	175	96%
TOTAL	2,578	2,578	645	885	34%

15. The first quarter activity has shown even higher volumes than expected during the ‘winter’ season and the programme continues to deliver ahead of targets.

16. The ratio of loans and grants has shifted significantly in favour of grants, which have a lower transactional cost to the programme, but as a result, financially the programme is slightly ahead of budget. Any requirement for re-foresting the programme will be reported in December.

Non recoverable costs re appeals and referrals direct to the Environment Court

17. For the year to date costs for appeals and referrals to the Environment Court have amounted to $31,230. This includes staff time and external costs.

18. Two appeals have been finalised. The AFFCO consent order has been signed off by the Environment Court. The Twyford appeals have been withdrawn.

19. Drafting of evidence has proceeded on the Mexted et al appeals. There was some possibility of a revised proposal being submitted which may have helped resolve the appeals, however these have not been advanced to date. A separate appeal has been lodged with the High Court over the extent of the evidence provided by the appellants (going beyond the scope of their submissions and grounds for appeal). The Regional Council will have only minor involvement with this.

20. The appeal against the Napier City Council wastewater outfall remains on the books. The Environment Court determined that it not be proceeded with but this decision was successfully appealed against to the High Court by Mr Church. The High Court directed the Environment Court to reconsider this matter and the outcome of that reconsideration will determine whether the actual appeal should proceed to be heard. Staff and lawyers of HBRC and NCC did meet with Mr and Mrs Church and their lawyer in September to allow Mr Church to outline his concerns and to see if these could be resolved. This process did not achieve any resolution.

21. The following table summarises costs for appeals that were still ongoing at the start of this financial year. Costs to date for the 2012/13 year to date are shown in the shaded column. Costs for previous years are also shown and these are summed to provide a running total for each appeal.

Appeal Summary as at 18 October 2012
Appeal Name	Date of Council Approval to Defend Appeal	Estimated Cost of the Appeal as Advised to Council	Actual Costs of Appeal (Appropriate Years)				Comments
Appeal Name	Date of Council Approval to Defend Appeal	Estimated Cost of the Appeal as Advised to Council	2010/11	2011/12	2012/13 to date	Total to date	Comments
Twyford / Raupare (402109)	25 May 2011	Noted $150,000 on similar appeal	$22,506	$25,050 ext* $49,450	$3,182 ext $5,155	$76,661	The Appeal has been withdrawn. Council is working with Twyford groups to explore water management options.
AFFCO (402046)	23 Sept 2009	Not estimated	$81,321	$39,783 ext $46,307	$3,843 ext $4,372	$132,000	Appeal has now been settled
Mexted, Williams and Malherbe (402051)	10 June 2010	Not estimated	$8,366	$38,513 ext $49,956	$12,011 ext $13,028	$71,350	Appeal ongoing - Environment Court scheduled and deferred. May be settled by consent order. Received advice that a revised proposal is due. High Court appeal has also been lodged.
NCC BTF Wastewater outfall (402113)				$24,320 ext $28,043	$7,324 ext $9,187	$37,230	Environment Court determined that the appeal was not to be proceeded with as it was lodged late. This decision was successfully appealed to the High Court by Mr Church. Environment Court is to convene to reconsider the point of lateness and if required the appeal will then proceed to be heard.
*External costs				$17,342	$26,360		The sum to date for external legal and consulting advice
Total costs			$294,733	$27,898	$31,742	$31,742	Total includes internal staff time plus external costs.

Balance Sheet

22. Public Equity, which reflects the net value of all the Council’s assets and liabilities, has decreased by $1,500,000 or 0.3% since the beginning of the year.

23. Non-current property, plant & equipment, intangible and infrastructure assets have increased by $1,980,000 or 1.2% since the beginning of the year reflecting the purchase of fixed assets and construction of infrastructure assets in the period, off-set by depreciation and amortisation charges. Included in this increase is $510,000 of development expenditure on Ruataniwha project, $177,000 for a new server and $143,000 development costs on Share Point.

24. Investment property has decreased by $6,700,000 or 9.9% since the beginning of the year reflecting the disposal of endowment leasehold land properties.

25. Receivables have decreased since the beginning of the year by $1,475,000 to a similar level this time last year.

26. Trade and Other Payables have decreased since the beginning of the year by $2,766,000 as year-end invoices have been paid and accruals reversed.

27. Income in advance shows a significant movement of $3,786,000 due to the accrual of rate revenue in advance prior to the issue of rates invoices for the year in early October 2012.

28. Total Cash, Cash Equivalents and Financial Assets show a decrease of $1,775,000 since the beginning of the year. Typically, during the first quarter of the year the Council experiences significant cash outgoings with few cash receipts until rates are issued in October.

Cash Reserve Investments

29. The average rate of interest being earned on liquid investments is currently 4.11%. This rate is lower than the rate assumed in the 2012/13 year of the LTP 4.15% for both short and long-term bank investments.

30. The pie chart in the attachment entitled “Allocation by Institution” shows the percentage of Council investments placed with various institutions. Council policy requires that no more than 25% of investments be placed with any non government–guaranteed institution of groups of associated institutions.

Decision Making Process

31. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Annual Plan Progress Report for the first three months of 2012/13 financial year.

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1 View	Financial Summary
2 View	Summary Operating Statement
3 View	Balance Sheet
4 View	Capital Activities
5 View	Reserves Funding
6 View	Financial Assets

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 31 October 2012

SUBJECT: October 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

Reason for Report

1. This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management	· Biosecurity	Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy Hearing held 15 February 2012. Council adopted Hearings Panel recommendations 29 Feb. One reference made to Environment Court. Mediation held 12 September 2012. Further mediation agreed to. E&S Committee considered possible approach at their October meeting.
	· Land Management	A proposal for how the Land management team will influence the uptake of best farming practices in intensive land use areas is being developed and will be brought to Council for their consideration in December. The proposal will include the alignment of a proportion of the RLS subsidy scheme to support the initiative.
	· Infrastructure disaster insurance	A review of infrastructure disaster insurance arrangements is underway. LAPP held meetings of Members in May & July. Further meeting have been arranged for November. Staff expect to report to Council on the issue early in 2013.
	· Tutira Properties	Negotiations are progressing with LINZ, Office of Treaty Settlements and Maungaharuru Tangitu Inc. Progress on this negotiation is driven by the needs of MTI and OTS. A briefing paper will be prepared for Council consideration in the near future.
	· Regional Forestry project	Council have decided to postpone the implementation of this project. Staff will review carbon price forecasts and if considered favourable will seek further direction from Council early in 2013.
	· Regional open spaces review	A project to identify and record HBRC open space sites and their values, articulate the management principles and levels of service for those spaces, and identify opportunities for the development of those spaces for public enjoyment is underway.
	· Upper Makara Scheme	Review of options to provide equivalent level of flood protection to land in Makara valley as an alternative to the repair of the Makara No 1 dam is in progress. Findings are expected to be reported back to Council in December.
Asset Management	· Ohuia Scheme	Council have approved the construction of a replacement pump station for the Ohuia Scheme, subject to general agreement from all Scheme ratepayers. Consultation with ratepayers will be arranged during November. Detailed design work will be done with objective of new pump station being constructed early in 2013.
	· Collaboration with Department of Conservation, Greater Wellington & Horizons	A number of opportunities for improved service delivery and for cost savings have been identified. Work plan next 12 months agreed by CE’s on 4 September. Staff progressing a number of opportunities. Report to Council planned for November.
	· 159 Dalton Street	Building consent application for remedial work has been submitted. Tender and contract documentation now being prepared. Tenders expected to be sought during November. Claim for cost of remedial work being pursued by lawyers acting for HBRC.
Resource Management	· Appeal mediation processes underway for	Twyford This appeal has been withdrawn and the file is now closed. Separately HBRC is working on an MOU to support investigations into global consent/ water sharing strategies that can assist in more efficient / effective use of the available water. This work is being incorporated into an application for IAF funding of water availability across the Herataunga Plains.
		AFFCO Appeal settled between parties and the Consent Order was signed off by Environment Court on 1 October 2012.
		Mexted & Williams Environment Court hearing is still pending. There has been discussion between parties with suggested changes being made to the proposed development. This would lessen some of the impacts. The appellants have not signalled their response to these changes. A High Court appeal has also been lodged. The defendant is questioning the permissibility of the coastal hazard evidence.
Resource Management		NCC BTF plant The High Court has delivered its decision on the Church Appeal. It has returned the matter to the Environment Court to reconsider the question of whether the appeal was lodged on time. The appeal is not live at this time but if it is accepted as having been lodged on time, or if the time limit for lodging is waived then it will become live and the matter can then proceed to the Environment Court. A meeting was held between parties on 14 September 2012 in response to a request that Mr Church be heard on his concerns. While some agreement was found on the monitoring following flushes of the BTF, Mr Church did not change his stance at the meeting. NCC Whakarire Avenue Coastal Protection Structure There is disagreement over the activity status of the proposed Whakarire Avenue coastal protection. It has been agreed to seek a declaration from the Environment Court to determine this before proceeding with the application.
	· Large Consent processes/applications	Poukawa Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders pre notification decision. Limited notification pending.
		Tukituki and Karamu surface water takes Common expiry date for these catchments of 31 May 2013. Advice of the need to apply for new consents has been sent out. S 124 applies if these are lodged before 1 December 2012.
	· Science Activities	Groundwater Staff continue to work closely with the planning team to develop policy associated with water allocation and water quality management for the Tukituki plan change. Groundwater scientists are working collaboratively with experts from GNS Science to undertake water quality modelling within the Ruataniwha Basin, using Council’s groundwater flow model.
		This work focuses on use of the model to identify contaminant transport pathways and travel times. This work is a key component of the wider nutrient modelling work for the Tukituki Plan Change and Ruataniwha storage projects. A shallow groundwater nitrate survey is underway in the Ruataniwha Plains to support the plan change. Groundwater wells less than 25 m are being sampled to provide understanding of current shallow nitrate concentations across the plains and the data will be used to clibrate water quality models. Requirements for technical investigations and development of groundwater models are being assessed for the Heretaunga Plan change.
Resource Management		Surface Water Quantity Rob Christie is project directing NEMS (National Environmental Monitoring Standards). Eight national environmental monitoring standards are currently under development. These are due for completion at the end of the year (under budget). Rob has also been drafted to project manage the modelling inputs and outputs required for the RWS and plan change. Thomas Wilding is working closely with Tim Sharp in helping scope work and reports required for the Heretaunga Plan Change. Management of low flow within the Heretaunga Catchment is a focus of attention. Rob Waldron continues to work on Tukituki hydrology scenarios for RWS and plan change. The field team continue to collect rainfall, climate and river flow data from across Hawke’s Bay. Berry Road flood warning site has been re-established after being destroyed by a slip. Taiparu Road slack line has been finalised. Work is still underway in preparation for the quality management systems review. Pete Davis has been preparing sites for water quality installations and air quality installations.
Resource Management		Surface Water Quality and Ecology Staff are continuing to support the Planning team with the Tukituki, Mohaka and Heretaunga Plan Change with a large focus of the team on on the main water quality limits setting report for the Tukituki Plan Change. The “hundred point” nitrate survey of the Ruataniwha Plains was completed on the 20^th of September. Results are coming in from the lab and being compiled at present. Concurrent water quality and gauging results will inform a flow/loading model that will be developed for the Ruataniwha plains to support the plan change. Field sampling of river SoE sites on a monthly basis across the region continues to progress well. has been progressing monthly and the team is on target and successfully finishing the runs on schedule. The SoE lakes programme for Lake Oingo and Runanga (monthly sampling for two years) was completed this month. Bimonthly water quality sampling will start in Lake Waikaremoana and hopefully Lake Waikareiti (depending on access and logistics) in November 2012. The Waikaremoana monitoring buoy gets upgraded with a deep dissolved oxygen probe in November 2012. The nearshore water quality monitoring programme has been extended north to Mahia with a successful sampling run being completed in early October. The coastal ecology projects are ongoing and progressing well. Coastal buoy mooring has largely been built. Delays of equipment being shipped from the USA has resulted in some delays with deployment expected by the end of 2012 at the latest. The effects of the recent algal bloom (red tide) are being investigated, divers collected infauna cores and sediments for analysis. The results are still to come.
		Air & Climate A presentation of the results of air quality monitoring for this winter compared to previous years was presented at the October meeting of the Environment and Services Committee.
Resource Management		Land Science Ongoing regional soil mapping (S Map). Currently mapping south eastern coastal strip. Ongoing Taharua catchment investigation. Awaiting report on loss of ecosystem services investigation arising from April 2011 storm. May provide some insight into the value of ‘Trees on Farms’ Fiona Cameron has begun characterisation of wetlands in the Heretaunga catchments. Regional soil quality monitoring project continuing as part of Land SOE requirement. Land owners identified and currently being contacted.This year looking at intensive pasture. Ongoing biodiversity characterisation of Ngaruroro catchment.
		Ongoing assistance to policy with biodiversity strategy development. Ongoing assistance with water storage programme and Tukituki Choices document (plan change) and Mohaka plan change. Planning for upcoming work in the Heretaunga catchment (Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments)
	· Biodiversity Strategy	The working group was held in October. This meeting focused on gaining an understanding of what the individuals in the group were doing in the biodiversity area and how best to work as a group in the future. There will be a further meeting to develop the approach and key milestones to achieve the strategy using an Intervention logic Model in a session facilitated by Landcare staff.
	· Quality Management System (QMS)	Work continues with revision of hydrology procedures within Promapp (the on-line “manual” of QMS policies and procedures) to maintain compliance with ISO 9001 requirements. Response to a recent report summarising outcomes of an external audit of the Environmental Science QMS will be completed. Processes and procedures in the QMS continue to be refined. These will include incorporation of a work-flow module within the Promapp suite.
	· Hazardous Waste	Fred King has been involved as a regional council representative on the Agrichemicals Review 2012 Working Group. Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and Environment Canterbury also have a representative on the Working Group. The Project Manager of the Agrichemical Review 2012 is the 3R Group Ltd. There is a range of chemical industry organisations / associations represented on the Working Group, together with a representative from the Ministry for the Environment. The purpose of the Agrichemical Review 2012 Working Group is to provide recommendations for the development of an industry wide, nationwide product stewardship programme for agrichemicals and their associated containers that will maximise the collection and safe disposal of waste agrichemicals and prevent future legacy stockpiles from accumulating.”
Strategic Development	· Land and Water Management Strategy	Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22
	· RPS Change to incorporate elements of Land and Water Management Strategy (Change 5)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Change 5 publicly notified on 2 October. Submission deadline is 5pm Mon 5 November 2012. Short paper to be presented to Regional Planning Committee (meeting date 7 Nov) outlining themes in any submissions received prior to RPC agenda publishing timeframes.
	· Implementation programme for giving effect to 2011 NPS for Freshwater Management	NPSFM Implementation Programme adopted by Council at September meeting and publicly notified on 5 October. No submission process associated with this Programme. Programme can be viewed on www.hbrc.govt.nz. Programme will be reported on annually as part of Council’s future Annual Reports.
	· Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment	Ongoing. Project programme as per July 2012 Council decision (see separate item on October Council agenda).
	· Plan Change for freshwater management in Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchment	Ongoing. First collaborative stakeholder meeting held on 9th October and next one is scheduled for 13 November.
	· Rivermouth Hazard Areas in proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Variation 1)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Decisions issued 6 June 2012. No appeals lodged. Variation 1 now incorporated into revised version of proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (see separate item on October Council agenda).
	· Onsite Wastewater change (Change 3 + Variation 3)	Schedule 1 RMA process. Change 3 became operative from 1 October 2012. Variation 3 now incorporated into revised version of proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan (see separate item on October Council agenda
Strategic Development	· RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters (RPS Change 4)	Schedule 1 RMA process. 45 submissions and 6 further submissions received. Hearing by a Panel by end of 2012.Schedule 1 RMA process.
	Ÿ Taharua Strategy and Mohaka plan change.	Ongoing. Update presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 5 September. Committee supported in-principle the concept of a ‘catchment management plan’ being a key component of the Taharua plan change. Committee also noted plan change could be ready for Council’s approval mid-2013. Immediate next steps involve further negotiations between major landowners about N mitigation options and responsibilities. For wider Mohaka catchment, supporting science progressing, stakeholder engagement now commenced.
	Ÿ Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan plus Change 1 to RRMP	See separate item on October Council agenda. Council-approved RCEP then referred to Minister of Conservation for approval of provisions relating to coastal marine area.
	Ÿ Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)	Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.
	· Joint Land Use and Natural Hazards Strategy	Ongoing. Draft Joint Strategy Implementation Plan to be presented to Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee (tentatively scheduled for November 2012 meeting).
	Ÿ Regional Land Transport Programme	The Regional Land Transport programme is now being implemented, where approvals for funding have been granted, e.g. Whakatu project
	Ÿ Bus Services	As a result of 25 submissions to the 10 Year Plan, Route 17 is being extended to travel past the Summerset Village Parkvale from 5 November. From 29 October, seven extra services daily (Monday to Friday) will be operating on Route 20, Hastings-Flaxmere services, to meet growing demand from the Flaxmere community. Two new bus shelters have been installed outside EIT. The annual passenger survey will take place in mid November.
	Ÿ Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce	To date from 1^st July 2012 MSI Regional Partner has brought in $984,153.88 grant funding into Hawke’s Bay working with 27 businesses.
	Ÿ Strategic Farming Initiative	R&D projects continue to be scoped under Land Management function. The next Pan Sector group meeting is planned for late November.
	Ÿ Massey Strategic Relationship	HBRC and Massey have signed an MoU that will trigger the recruitment of the jointly funded person to develop the relationship and exploit mutual opportunities. Discussions are planned with the newly created Water Initiatives Centre at Massey.
Corporate Services	· Assessment of selling cash flows from Napier leasehold land	Paper for Council consideration in November.
	· Financial report covering three months to 30 September 2012	Council meeting 31 October 2012
	Constituency Review: · Council to consider submissions and decide final proposal · Referral of Council proposal and any appeals to the Local Government Commission	25 October 2012 21 December 2012
External Relations	· Statutory advocacy and liaison	Liaison with consultant on Phase 2 of the Prosperity Study
	· Liaison with Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee	Training of two new Committee members
	· Community engagement / environmental education	External Relations staff developing the refresh of Council’s Intranet for completion by November 2012. Work underway on development of promotional material for the launch of the “Wineries Ride” on November 4th. Finalising of technical requirements for webcasting of Council and Committee meetings
	· HeatSmart	Contingency planning for scenario in event that EECA withdraws from clean heat funding. EECA has yet to secure future funding, and existing funding likely to run out next March. HBRC needs alternative incentives in place in order to meet targets.
Operations/ Water Group	Ruataniwha Water storage	· The final Project Feasibility report will be presented to Council for consideration on 26 September. · A further paper to be presented 31 October 2012
		· A range of further works and optimisation has been identified to be undertaken prior to the end of the year.
	· Ngaruroro Water Storage	· The on-farm economic analysis section of work for this project is now to be integrated into a wider application to MPI incorporating the Heretaunga and Karamu plan change project as part of work identified for the 2012/13 year.
	Ÿ Hawke’s Bay Trails	Ÿ The final section of the Landscapes Ride which is on-road cycle lanes on Waimarama Rd from River Road to Craggy Range winery is due to start Sept/Oct with Dec 2012 finish.
Operations/ Water Group		Ÿ NCC out to tender for Taradale/Knightsbridge Taipo Stream concrete section of the Water Ride for Dec 2012 completion. Construction of minor remaining sections during Sept/Oct including Bay View SH2 crossing.
		Ÿ Completion of SH50 & Stock Rd sections of Wineries Ride expected in Sept. Completion of link from Mere Rd to Fernhill expected to be resolved by Dec 2012.
		· Installation of distance & direction signposts, marker bollards and gateway signage being rolled out through Sept-Nov.
		· Wineries Ride opening 4^th November.
		· Continue with support for HDC Iway sections of trail in Hastings and Clive.
CE’s Office	Ÿ Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”	LAWF is due to submit its final report to Government covering water quality and water allocation. Regional Councils are very heavily wired into the recommendations often as the primary delivery agencies. The task on populating national limits is progressing well and may well assist considerably in setting a national context for our own plans and limits setting process.
	Ÿ Regional Prosperity study	A Steering Group meeting is scheduled for 2 November to further progress Stage 2. Liz Lambert is coordinating this for Council
	Ÿ Ruataniwha Water Storage	Covered by relating papers on the Agenda however, depending on decision re progressing to the next phase CE time commitment will expand not lessen
	Ÿ Hill Country Afforestation Proposal	Further oversight of business plan under way.
	Ÿ Continue work with Regional Sector CEs at Horizons and Greater Wellington plus Government Department CEs as appropriate on southern North Island partnership	DoC lower north island partnership progressing well. Attached as Attachment 1 is a media statement for your information.
	Ÿ Continue involvement with Ministry for Primary Industries Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS	Ongoing
	Ÿ Advisory Committee on Official Statistics	Ongoing

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the August 2012 Work Plan Looking Forward report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Paul Drury

Group Manager Corporate Services

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Water Initiatives

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Media Statement

[1] Council’s decisions on submissions were issued on 6 June 2012. No appeals were lodged.

[2] Council’s decisions on submissions were issued on 6 June 2012. No appeals were lodged.

[3] This version of the RCEP has a short ‘shelf-life.’ If adopted by Council, it will be referred to the Minister of Conservation who may or may not make further amendments. In any event, the RCEP will be completely republished in an ‘operative’ form within a matter of months, so printing full hardcopies of the RCEP as it currently stands is considered an unnecessarily cost-inefficient exercise.

JOB TITLE	POWERS CONFERRED ON AUTHORISED PERSON
Acting Chief Executive	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Group Manager, Resource Management Group	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Group Manager Asset Management Group	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Manager, Engineering	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Manager, Compliance, Pollution & Harbours	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Team Leader Pollution Response & Enforcement	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Port of Napier Limited Board of Directors Appointments (1.00 pm)	7(2)(a) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.