Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 June 2013

SUBJECT: Low Flow Notifications

Reason for Report

1. To request that Council approve the general principles of notifying low flow reductions and bans based on the new Customer Interaction Centre (CIC).

Background

2. Staff presented a paper to this Committee on 20 February 2013 outlining the new CIC system and gave background on how low flow notifications are done at present.

3. On 20 May 2013, Council staff met with industry representatives and agreement was obtained from the group to implement the low flow notifications as described below in section Proposed Notification Policy.

4. The industry present represented the following groups/organisations:

· Hort NZ

· Pipfruit NZ

· HB Fruitgrowers’ Association

· Ngaruroro Water Users

· Twyford Water Users

· Wine Growers’ Hawke’s Bay

· Hawke's Bay Vegetable Growers’ Association

Proposed Notification Policy

5. Council will no longer provide manual notification to individual consent holders that a river is getting low and on warning status. The status of river flows will continue to be provided through Council’s website.

5.1. Rationale: It is agreed that providing warnings that a river is getting low does not encourage water users to ‘be aware of the river flow’, be proactive and act co-operatively to roster and ration the water as a collective group.

5.2. Warnings can result in users reacting to a problem too late and can result in many growers rushing to turn on their system and topping up. This can result in river flows being pulled down quicker resulting in a ban earlier than if rationing was occurring. Stopping warnings will encourage water users to more actively be aware of river flows by using desktop and mobile website flow information, and work with each other to reduce the chance that everyone will irrigate at once and pull the river below minimum flow prematurely.

5.3. Council is continually improving river flow information on our website and mobile website.

6. The cost of sending SMS alerts for reduction, bans and ban liftings will not be charged to individual consent holders in the first year. The cost will be born as a general cost to the low flow project in the first year and shared as a project cost overhead. Once we get a better idea of cost distribution due to SMS alert uptake, staff will seek feedback from a greater cross section of low flow consent holders to decide whether a fixed charge should be set per SMS contact in the Annual Plan.

7. Due to potential transmission delays of SMS and Voice messages, low flow contacts will be required to nominate either a fax or email also if they chose SMS or Voice notification.

8. Decision making will now be an automatic process based on mean daily flow (MDF) rather than staff personal judgement based on instantaneous flow.

9. All telemetered low flow sites will have the MDF calculated from 0600 NZST – 0600 NZST. By 0700 NZST, all flow information will be received by Council systems and the calculated mean daily flow for each site will be placed into a regulatory flow table.

10. This becomes the ‘regulatory flow’ for the purpose of this policy.

11. The ‘regulatory flow’ is the flow that is applied to the following 0700 NZST – 0700 NZST period and is the flow used for all regulatory compliance purposes over that period.

11.1. Example, if a low flow site has minimum flow of 400 l/s, and the MDF from 0600 on 21 December 2014 to 0600 on 22 December 2014 is calculated as 410 l/s, the regulatory flow from 0700 on 22 December 2014 to 0700 on 23 December 2014 will be 410 l/s.

11.2. If the instantaneous flow drops below 400 l/s before 0700 on 23 December 2014, the river will not be put on ban unless the next MDF is below the low flow limit.

12. At 0705 NZST each day, any consent holders affected by a change (reduction, ban on or ban off) in a calculated MDF will be advised automatically by the CIC.

13. All reductions and bans will take effect at 1700 NZST on the day of notification.

13.1. Rationale: Currently bans take effect at midnight based on generally being notified between 1200 NZST and 1600 NZST. A 1700 NZST ban effect offers the same amount of warning to turn systems off and allow for water application to the most needed area of land if required.

14. All lifting’s will take effect immediately upon notification at 0705 NZST.

15. Staff will continue to explore if it is possible to cost effectively have the CIC system programmed to enable bans to be lifted manually. This may occur if a rivers instantaneous flow gets sufficiently above a minimum flow, during a significant rain event up catchment, to warrant staff doing a manual calculation that shows the MDF will exceed the minimum flow the next day.

16. Un-telemetered sites will have the last manual gauged flow, entered into the regulatory flow table each day, until another manual gauging is undertaken.

Cost implications and Consistency with Regional Plan

17. Staff do not consider the proposed policy to be inconsistent with the regional plan. The current low flow process is not part of the regional plan and has not been formally reviewed by Council for quite some years.

18. Staff consider this policy creates a more cost effective and transparent process that provides more certainty for all parties involved. The automated decision means there is no difference in service between a week day and a weekend, which currently is not always the case.

19. The costs of the policy are generally borne by the water users who benefit from them. If costs become inequitable during implementation, staff will make changes in the 2014/15 Annual Plan.

Decision Making Process

20. 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:

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

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

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

20.4. The persons affected by this decision are consent holders with water take resource consents which have minimum flow conditions.

20.5. Options that have been considered include the above proposed policy and maintaining status quo notification methods.

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

20.7. 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.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee recommend that Council adopt the proposed Low Flow Notification policy, start communicating with affected consent holders regarding the changes, and

2. Allow Manager – Resource Use and Group Manager Resource Management to make minor implementation changes if needed to ensure the new system delivers the appropriate outcomes.

Bryce Lawrence

Manager - Compliance and Harbours

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

2013/14 Land Management Operational Plan

Attachment 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 3

2. LAND MANAGEMENT TEAM ROLE.......................................................................... 3

3. STRATEGIC DRIVERS............................................................................................... 4

3.1 Reducing soil loss from steep highly erodible hill country............................... 4

3.2 Reducing the impact of diffuse source nutrient loss from primary production on water quality........................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Environmental enhancement and biodiversity protection.............................. 8

4. LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 9

4.1 Foresight & strategy......................................................................................... 9

4.2 Investment....................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Strategic Alliances........................................................................................... 13

4.4 Fit for purpose organisation............................................................................. 15

5. PROGRAM ALIGNMENT AND DELIVERABLES 2013-14......................................... 15

6. SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 16

7. APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 17

Image on the front page courtesy of www.abovehawkesbay.co.nz

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This operational plan describes how the Land Management Team (LMT) of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) will meet its objectives as outlined in the Long Term Plan (LTP). The operational plan will be presented to Council for approval at the commencement of each financial year. Performance against the operational plan will be presented to Council within five months of the close of a financial year. This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014. The plan documents the following:

· The role of the Land Management Team in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

· The link between LMT activity for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 and the community outcomes outlined in the Strategic Plan, Land & Water Management Strategy and Long Term Plan.

· The key strategic drivers for the LMT and its response to address these issues.

· The LMT program areas for 2013-14

2.0 LAND MANAGEMENT TEAMS ROLE

The LMT’s areas of focus and objectives are set by the HBRC Strategic Plan and Land and Water Management Strategy outcomes and outputs. Actions and performance targets to achieve these strategic objectives are defined by the LTP via the strategic enablers of – foresight and strategy, investment, strategic alliances and a fit for purpose organisation. The operational plan shows how LMT annual activities will lead to the achievement of long term plan and annual plan performance targets and contribute towards achieving the outcomes of the Strategic Plan as shown in Appendix 1.

The LMT plays a key role in implementing the non-regulatory policies and programs of the HBRC and in facilitating the wider adoption of sustainable land management throughout the Hawke’s Bay Region, in accordance with HBRC Resource Management Plans. The LMT structure is shown in figure 1.

Two new staff have joined the team to replace Angela Stead who left in December 2012 and to replace Warwick Hesketh who has been internally promoted to the position of Senior Land Management Advisor and will play a leading role working with sub-catchment communities implementing the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan (TCIP).

Organization Chart Figure 1. Land Management team structure

3.0 LAND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIC DRIVERS

The LMT’s primary focus for the following financial year is around the three key strategic drivers of –

· Reducing soil erosion in hill country

· Managing the impact of land use intensification and diffuse source discharge on water quality of the regions catchments

· The protection and enhancement of the region’s significant biodiversity.

3.1 Reducing soil loss from steep highly erodible hill country.

Hawke’s Bay has one of the highest rates of hill country erosion in New Zealand. This erosion results in the loss of the productive capacity, carbon, nutrients and potential water storage of soils. Offsite impacts include sedimentation of waterways, river aggradation and damage to infrastructure (McKay 2008).

The primary mechanism for addressing this issue in-lieu of Trees on Farms is the Regional Landcare Scheme’s (RLS) pole planting program, subsidisation of the Soil Conservation Nursery and support to landholders by staff for the planning and implementation of soil conservation programs and tailored farm plans. These processes have had a significant impact at reducing soil erosion in hill country throughout Hawke’s Bay (an estimated 440,000 poplar and willow trees planted on 11,000ha) but this equates to only around 7% of the 150,000 ha of steep highly erodible farmland in the region.

The program direction over the short to medium term will continue to evolve but remains as a significant priority for the LMT. Sedimentation is a major threat to water quality throughout the Hawke’s Bay region. Reducing soil erosion and sedimentation is a complex issue with limited and costly options available to address. It occurs in landscapes where geology, climate, and the relative incomes of land users combine to create complex problems where multiple and often competing goals for short and long term economic and environmental outcomes challenge and confuse solutions. The LMT will continue to explore opportunities for initiatives and programs that work closely with landholders, communities and industry to address these issues. This includes;

· The prioritisation of soil conservation RLS investment into targeted priority catchments e.g) the lower stem of the Tukituki catchment.

· Improving the cost benefit of RLS soil conservation investment in collaboration with the Land Science team by undertaking work in characterising the source, mechanisms, timing and impact of sediment loss within priority catchment areas. The objective being to better target investment to appropriate erosion control mechanisms to address soil loss when and where it occurs.

· Continued support of landholder capacity building through the provision of workshops and field days and support of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards.

· Synergies and strategic alliances with the primary sector industries. For example Beef & Lamb NZ by promoting and supporting the use and adoption of Land & Environment Plans (LEP’s) by hill country landholders.

HBRC’s current forest asset will be largely in a maintenance ie (not new forest establishment) phase from the 2013-14 financial year with most new planting across the forests completed. Staff are looking to maximise the investment return from the forest asset and will consider initiatives to reduce operational costs such as re-tendering the operational management currently contracted out. With “Trees on Farms” funded by the investment portfolio currently on hold due to low global and domestic carbon prices, staff are investigating other options for the “Trees on farms” concept. The potential of options such as high UMF manuka honey plantings will be better understood over the next 3-4 years as the Tutira Country Park high UMF trial progresses to honey production. In addition staff will actively seek to integrate the wider social, environmental or recreational opportunities available within the forest asset

3.2 Reducing the impact of diffuse source nutrient loss from primary production on water quality

A dominant priority for the LMT over the next 12 months is in the implementation of the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan (TCIP), (Heath 2013), adopted by Council 27 February 2013. This plan outlines how the policies and rules around nutrient management as outlined in Tukituki Catchment Proposed Change 6 (articulated as Change 6 from now on), will be implemented and the mechanisms HBRC will use to influence the non-regulatory approach to meeting water quality objectives.

The TCIP outlines 5 key programs to support the implementation process; these will be on-going processes for the short to medium term.

a) Stock exclusion rules

I. The LMT will provide transitional support to landholders implementing stock exclusion methods through awareness raising activities and if necessary on-farm by providing guidance on alternatives and clarifying the application of rules and regulations to specific on-farm scenarios. The rule for livestock exclusion from permanently flowing waterways and wetlands comes into force by 31 December 2017.

II. The LMT will work collaboratively with primary sector industries to develop a suite of Industry Good Practice guidelines for excluding livestock from waterways outside of the existing rules and regulations (eg. In hill country) and for managing riparian margins in cropping situations, as part of the 2017 stock exclusion deadline.

III. The LMT is developing a program to support the wider adoption by landholders of re-vegetating riparian areas rather than just seeking stock exclusion alone. Some limited RLS funding is available within priority areas to support riparian projects where they lead to multiple additional benefits. The group is working with DairyNZ and Fonterra to potentially develop a joint initiative to achieve greater riparian outcomes driven through the necessity to comply with both Change 6 and the revised Sustainable Dairying Water accord. The LMT is seeking agreement by 1 May 2014.

b) Nutrient budgeting, phosphorus management planning and environmental management planning

I. The LMT will support the development of protocols and data management systems designed to streamline the nutrient budgeting process and improve on the accuracy and reliability of information obtained.

II. The LMT will work closely and collaboratively with primary sector industries to develop industry good practice guidelines for nitrate-N leaching losses and nitrogen conversion efficiencies that will ultimately be used in achieving landholder N loss compliance. These need to be defined by industry by 31 July 2017. The LMT will also co-ordinate the use of existing industry protocols, templates and processes to achieve the nutrient budgeting and farm planning objectives.

c) Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) program

The LMT will play a key role in the planning and implementation of the monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement process to support the TCIP implementation programs. These MERI plans will be created in collaboration with key stakeholders within the sub-catchments to acknowledge the significance of local values and issues that the process needs to address. The TCIP MERI plan will be developed by 31 May 2014.

d) Promotion of Industry Good Practice (IGP)

I. The LMT will work closely with primary sector industries to develop a co-ordinated industry good practice marketing campaign and strategy over the next three years.

II. To develop a cross-sector reporting template and process for articulating what efforts and impacts the co-ordinated IGP process is having on landholder uptake of good practices. This is dependent on effective negotiation with the pan sector group, with a target for a collective agreement by 31 December 2015.

e) Priority sub-catchment nutrient mitigation and community engagement

These will be a priority focus of the LMT efforts and investment over the short to medium term. It is within these sub-catchments that additional mitigation or “clawback” is required to achieve the water quality objectives listed in Change 6. The causes and solutions to these issues and the relative methods and approaches used to achieve these objectives are not clear cut and need to be established within each sub-catchment and then tailored to specific on-farm combinations of soil type, land use, topography and economic means and therefore require a more considered and detailed approach. Porangahau and Papanui sub-catchments are the first priority areas, with compliance targets by 2017.

I. The first priority will be to co-ordinate and facilitate a sub-catchment characterisation process to increase understanding of the biophysical issues within each sub-catchment and to seek understanding of the dominant socio-economic drivers and barriers to achieving those outcomes that might need to be considered in the implementation approach. This process is being initiated now.

II. Community engagement and sub-catchment governance is a critical component of the sub-catchment process. A new position within the team has been resourced as previously discussed with Council, whose primary role is to drive and facilitate the community participation and governance in sub-catchment water quality initiatives. This will be primarily through the production of a community sub-catchment water quality implementation plan and for each landholder within the priority catchment the completion and implementation of a phosphorus management plan. These will need to be in place by the plan change target of 1 July 2017.

III. The majority of the change to achieve water quality targets within priority sub-catchment will be via landholder efforts at a paddock scale. Supporting this process via the co-ordination of workshops, field days, provision of tools and resources to help guide decision making will be an important component of the approach and another key function of the new Senior Land Management Advisor.

IV. To support the additional mitigation required in the priority sub-catchments to claw back nutrients will require a level of investment support through the provision of incentives and capacity building initiatives and these are priority areas of focus for a component of the RLS funding over the next few years.

V. An additional suite of monitoring, evaluation and reporting (MERI) processes are required within the sub-catchments. This is to reflect the level of resource allocation from the LMT to these areas and the need to adaptively manage and account for the success or otherwise to the processes and methods used to influence change.

3.3 Environmental enhancement and biodiversity protection

RLS investment on private land to assist landholders protect and enhance areas of significant biodiversity is a key priority of the LMT. Several LMT staff are involved in the development of the HB Biodiversity Strategy, currently being facilitated by HBRC. This strategy is due for completion in June 2014. As the Biodiversity Strategy progresses it is anticipated that the LMT will play a significant role in “operationalising” the outcomes of the strategy. An important component of this will be in aligning and prioritising where on-ground investment is of greatest effect and also where investment in nutrient mitigation practices or soil conservation projects in other priority areas like the Tukituki catchment can lead to additional biodiversity outcomes. Programs or processes currently being developed or considered by the LMT include –

· A capacity building program to raise awareness of the importance and significance of biodiversity on farms to the provision of ecosystem services for the benefit of both the private landholder and wider community.

· A review to consider how we can better brand and advertise biodiversity project investment on private land, through better signage, marketing and communications via farm case studies and articles in publications.

A number of significant community based initiatives will continue to play an important role in the biodiversity program including –

· Coastal Dunes restoration projects

· Maraetotara Tree Trust

· Tutira Poutiri Ao Otane Project

4.0 PROGRAM AREAS

The following section outlines the key program areas and wider activities the land management team will be involved in over the following 12 months and how these will contribute to the performance targets listed in the LTP as shown in appendix 2.

4.1 Foresight & STRATEGY

Members of the LMT have made a significant contribution to the various catchment plan changes occurring within HBRC (Tukituki, Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro & Karamu (TANK) catchments, Mohaka-Taharua, Whakaki, Whangawehi) and in the development of the RWSS proposal. The contribution reflects the wide range of skills the team possess and has occupied a significant component of time for a number of staff over the past year. Ongoing involvement in these projects is expected with LMT –

· Providing nutrient modelling science support and farm systems interpretation and analysis.

· Facilitating industry participation and input into plan change and RWSS processes.

· Facilitating and managing catchment stakeholder processes and participation in the design of local solutions to water quality problems e.g) the Taharua catchment.

· Providing guidance on the practicalities, implications and economic impact of permitted activity rules and policies on landholders within the catchments.

· Producing implementation plans and processes to drive the implementation of policy, rules and regulation on-ground.

· Providing expert witness evidence to the EPA process on the implementation program for Change 6.

· Supporting the RWSS farmer uptake program by providing landholders with an understanding of the implications of Change 6 on land use within the Tukituki catchment.

The team will continue to provide this support throughout the EPA process and in the on-going plan change processes occurring with council.

4.2 Investment

4.2.1 Research

The LMT Research investment continues to align with the following key principles –

1. Aligned with LMT strategic drivers – research focus this year will be in assisting landholders better understand and manage the implications of their land use on water quality.

a. Reducing the loss of phosphorus from winter feed crops and feedlots.

b. Understanding the social barriers to change by land users in priority sub-catchments.

c. Developing better methods for measuring the adoption of “Good Agricultural Practice” by landholders in HB.

2. Leverage – the LMT will look to invest strategically in research projects that return good value to that investment in terms of extending reach, reducing costs and adding benefits.

3. Collaboration and partnership – with industry sectors will enable the LMT to better target its investment to deliver on outcomes. Partnerships with industry also increase the likelihood of applied research being adopted into industry best practice

Table 1, summarises the existing LMT research program for 2013-14, and includes the deliverables from each of the research projects during that period.

Table 1. Research Projects 2013-14

Title	Description	Deliverables 2013-14	Who
Creating a Climate for Success –Huatokitoki Landcare Community	increasing resilience to climate change & market risk, to optimise resource use, to lift profitability and to build social capital in the Huatokitoki sub-catchment	· Huatokitoki Project field day · Farm management data analysis report · Project outcomes brochure
Mitigating the Economic Costs to Farmers Following Severe Rain Storm Events project	Evaluating the economic cost of storm damage and benefits of soil erosion controls on the southern HB coast	· Production of farm case studies · Farm erosion cost calculator
Dryland forest project	Investigation of the use of hardwoods in hill country farming systems	· Research updates
Willow & Poplar Research Program	Support the breeding programme which develops new disease resistant and site tolerant varieties of P & W	· Research updates
SFF/FAR Tukituki Choices for Arable Farmers	Project investigating how the integration of different cropping and livestock enterprises can raise the profitability and reduce the environmental footprint of arable farmers in HB	· Farm plan template developed · Case studies completed · Demonstration site field day
East Coast Dryland Project	Investigate and evaluate alternatives to existing pastures, forages, and farming systems to increase farm resilience to climate variability	· 15 discussion group meetings · 3 farm field days
Wairoa Hill Country Project	Investigate and promote more profitable and sustainable hill country land use options	· New programme proposed to start in 2013-14, subject to agreement and funding from MPI
The LMT is also providing resource support to the following land science research projects
S-MAP	Project to improve the quality and quantity of soil mapping for the HB region
Project 339 202 Riparian investigations	To assess the condition and extent of riparian protection.
Project 339 203 Catchment Issues Investigations	To identify areas of concern (hot spots) within major catchment areas (as described in Land & Water management strategy) enabling HBRC to act proactively rather that reacting to environmental issues.
Project 340 202 Soil Quality Monitoring	As part of the SOE monitoring will identify areas and practices that are being degraded/degrading soil quality
Project 340 203 Land Use Monitoring	Identification of land use change is basic information needed to inform council regarding policy direction and maintain/enhance environmental sustainability.
Project 340 204 Erosion Monitoring	Monitoring to assist in identifying (i) most ‘at risk’ areas (ii) quantify amount of erosion taking place (iii) effects on water quality (iv) measure the effectiveness of RLS plantings and other council schemes with regard to erosion control (v) erosion occurring on the plains
Project 340 206 Wetland Monitoring	Identification, prioritisation and monitoring are all essential components in the protection of our wetlands as required by the new freshwater NPS

4.2.2 Capacity building

Capacity building plays an important role in complementing the LMT’s research and grant programs, through extending research results, providing workshops and field days to landholders who haven’t received RLS incentives and by maintaining momentum with important regional issues outside of priority areas.

Capacity building is the process by which people, organisations and communities further develop their understanding and skills to successfully manage change. Building capacity focuses on enhancing existing strengths and abilities, and developing new capabilities¹.

¹ NSW Natural Resource Management Capacity Building Guide

This year’s capacity building focus is on the development of a program in collaboration with priority sub-catchment communities that is tailored to their needs and supports their ability to reduce their impact on water quality. The LMT will achieve this by:

1. Raising awareness of the water quality issues and impact of land use practices on water quality within each priority sub-catchment.

2. Providing field days and workshops using local demonstration sites to provide land users with the necessary skills to undertake their own phosphorus management planning.

3. Developing the necessary tools and knowledge resources for land users to refer to in interpreting the Plan Change 6 rules and regulations to their own properties.

4. Facilitating community engagement meetings and sub-catchment governance groups.

Table 2 outlines the capacity building program for 2013-14. Note that capacity building associated with research projects is included in the research table.

Table 2. Capacity building program 2013-14.

Title	2013-14 Activity
Ballance Farm Environment awards	· Awards dinner · Regional winner field day · Participation in judging process · Farmer feedback reports
Riparian program – to be developed in collaboration with DairyNZ & Fonterra	· Riparian planning workshops · Development of riparian planning tool
Nutrient (Phosphorus) Management Planning (PMP) workshops	· PMP planning workshops in priority sub-catchments in collaboration with primary sector
Tukituki Plan Change 6 awareness raising meetings	· Supporting HBRC meetings for landholders to understand implications of plan change
Porangahau & Papanui sub-catchment community meetings	· Community meetings to form governance groups and develop sub-catchment plan
LandWISE Conference	· Annual conference
LandWISE activities	· HBRC representation on board
Farm Forestry Awards	· Regular field days and activities
McRae Farm Trust Field Day	· Regular field days
Trees for bees project	· Co-ordinating local project group
Forest Engineering Manual Launch	· Field day in association with forest companies

4.2.3 RLS incentives and grants

The investment focus for 2013-14 financial year is on developing the programs and processes to support the implementation of the TCIP, with particular emphasis on the development of investment priorities within priority sub-catchments for the 2014-15 financial year.

The LMT is currently undertaking an extensive review of the RLS grant scheme

· How the scheme has been used in the past and lessons learnt.

· The current RLS format and what can be done to ensure the process is as effective and efficient as is possible.

· The direction the scheme will need to take into the future to meet landholder needs, Council priorities and the impact of new rules and regulations on project funding conditions.

Table 3 outlines the LMT’s RLS targets for the next financial year in comparison to the targets and their achievement for the 2012-13 financial year.

Table 3. Priorities for on-ground investment 2013-14

	Target 2012-13	Achieved 2012-13	Target 2013-14
Wetland restoration and protection	5 projects	8 projects	5 projects
Riparian or stream retirement	15 project	29 projects	7 projects
Soil conservation	28,000 poles 140 properties	37,700 poles 277 properties	20,000 poles 100 properties
Preservation of native bush	100 ha	96 ha	100 ha
Coastal (cliffs, dunes, estuaries)	0	0	2
Research projects initiated	2	2	2
Capacity building activities	7	23	20
Participants attending events	250	590	500
Catchment management community engagement meetings	9 events	15 events	15 events

Key points to note from table 3 include –

· Fewer riparian projects for the next financial year as the riparian planting program is developed and the funding for fencing is stopped in the Tukituki catchment in recognition of the stock exclusion rule, it is anticipated that this target will be significantly higher for the 2014-15 period..

· Greater emphasis on wetland projects with emphasis on projects achieving both nutrient mitigation and biodiversity outcomes.

· Same investment and targets for indigenous vegetation, noting that RLS funding for the QE2 partnership is a key activity to achieve this target.

· A significant reduction in soil conservation poles planted this financial year due to reduced availability of poles from the nursery for the 2013-14 period.

· More emphasis on capacity building & community engagement this year to compliment LMT’s other programs and priorities.

4.3 Strategic alliances

Strategic alliances are a key function of the LMT. They are critical to the success of programs and the achievement of LMT objectives. These relationships benefit all of HBRC and enable the team to leverage LMT resources with external stakeholders to maximise efficiency, effectiveness and achievement of program outcomes. The LMT works with a wide range of industry stakeholders and groups, agricultural intermediaries, government agencies, community groups and mana whenua to affect the adoption of sustainable land management practices.

The LMT continues to develop and foster the existing strong relationships they have with the region’s land owners and primary sector industries. The LMT regularly provide support and advice to landholders through one on one contact on farm, through the teams involvement in community meetings and field days and in attending associated primary industry events and activities.

Understanding the needs and barriers to change of the region’s land owners is critical to the LMT’s program success and it is through this interaction with regional stakeholders collectively and individually where this understanding is developed

Table 4 outlines the formal strategic alliances the LMT is responsible for over the 2013-14 financial year.

Table 4. Key Strategic Alliances for 2013-14.

Group/Project	Description	Participation
Pan-sector group	The Pan Sector Group was officially formed to work collaboratively to drive continued investment into research and development of regional initiatives around best practice and farm profitability. The initial focus is on realising the potential benefits socially, economically and environmentally of the RWSS but the group has increasingly played a key role in helping shape and policies, rules and regulations within the Tukituki Plan Change 6	AgResearch, Plant & Food, Beef & Lamb, Fed Farmers, DairyNZ, Fonterra, PipfruitNZ, HortNZ, FAR, LandWISE, Massey Uni, Fertiliser Assoc, HB Fruit Grower, HB Winegrowers, MPI, HBRC, McCains, Heinz Watties, IrrigationNZ, Silver Fern Farms
Dairy Liaison group	Forum for dairy farmers and HBRC to maintain open communication and achieve improvements in practices on farm. Also a cross-council focal point to have a unified approach to the dairy sector	Dairy Farmers, HBRC, DairyNZ, Fonterra
Maraetotara Tree Trust	Restoration of the Maraetotara stream	Land holders, Maraetotara Tree Trust, HDC, DOC, local schools
Waimarama, Mahanga, Porangahau, Kairakau, Mangakuri, Waipatiki, Pourere coastal dune groups	Restoration and protection of coastal dunes in collaboration with local communities	Local Communities
Tutira Poutiri Project	Project aim is to re-introduce species to this area and improve biodiversity	DOC, Poutiri project leader
Pastoral Steering Committee	Group formed to provide governance and co-ordination into future needs of the pastoral sector	MPI, FedFarmers, Beef&Lamb, Landholders, HBRC
Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group	Awareness raising, This is a forum for discussing local forestry issues and environmental outcomes and improvements in forest industry.	All major forest owners and some minor forest owners and their representatives in HB

4.4 Fit for purpose organisation

A key deliverable not achieved this financial year was the development of a program monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) framework. Primarily due to the increased role of the LMT to support the development of Plan Change 6 and RWSS project.

The LMT needs to position itself to ensure it is best prepared to proactively meet the challenges of environmental and organisational change. Key to this is an adaptive approach to management and a strong focus on MERI. This provides crucial feedback on the impact, effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness of the LMT’s programs and projects in relation to the objectives and outcomes of council. The LMT will be prioritising the development of a MERI plan this year. Crucially it will synergise with the MERI plan being developed to support the TCIP implementation process.

The LMT continues to provide significant support to a range of groups within Council in addition to those discussed above including, supporting the land science and consents/compliance groups through farm systems analysis and nutrient budgeting.

The team recognise the new and increased demands on staff and the pace of change within the group recently. Two staff have recently joined the team and focus is on the development of individual skills of each team member to meet these challenges. The team continue to support and attend the leading conferences and workshops relevant to LMT objectives and individual targeted skill development is being provided to staff that request and require it.

5.0 Program alignement and deliverables for 2013-14

The LMT have made significant effort and progress to ensure its programs and processes are aligned with the strategic objectives of Council. Appendices 1 and 2 show how the LMT uses the strategic enablers of foresight and planning, investment, strategic alliances and a fit for purpose organisation in its operational planning to achieve the performance targets and deliverables within the LTP and annual plan. Annual operational activities and targets are aligned with the overarching consolidated outcomes from the HBRC strategic plan and the HB Land & Water Management Strategy as shown in appendix 3.

6.0 Summary

The LMT has gone through a significant period of change and will continue to do so over the next financial year. The team has played significant role in the dominant activities within council. The team has continued to review and improve on its processes and protocols throughout the year.

The key strategic drivers for the next financial year continue to focus on the sustainable use of hill country, the implementation of the Tukituki Implementation Plan and the strategic protection and enhancement of the regions significant natural capital.

The team will continue to contribute to the plan changes currently occurring within council and support the development of the RWSS should it progress through the EPA process. LMT investment will continue to be prioritised towards the strategic drivers listed above.

2013/14 Land Management Operational Plan

Attachment 1

Appendix 1. Guiding principles of LMT Operational Plan

Appendix 2. 2013-14 Annual plan deliverables and activities contributing to those deliverables.

Capacity building

Research

Strategic Enabler	LTP 2012-13 performance targets	Key Program Areas	Annual 2013-14 Deliverables	2013-14 Activities
Foresight & Strategy	· Catchment models developed for Taharua and Mohaka catchment. · Begin modelling of Heretaunga catchments.	Catchment Planning	· Minimum 18 weeks of LMT staff time participating in the catchment planning processes.	· Continuation of LMT input into the development of the Mohaka-Taharua Catchment Plan · Provision of input into the TANK catchment plan · Continuation of LMT input into the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme development · Lead the development of community based sub-catchment P management plans for the Porangahau and Papanui sub-catchments · Continuation of the development of catchment action plans for the Whakaki and Whangawehi communities
		Biodiversity strategy development	· 3 weeks staff participation into the biodiversity strategy
		Tukituki Catchment Implementation plan		· Provide expert witness support through the EPA process of the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan · Continue to develop, refine and operationalise the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan
Investment	· Regional Landcare Scheme (RLS) reviewed outcomes to be implemented by June 2014. · Report in the operation plan how RLS activity directly contributes to sustainable land management outcomes. · Annual output targets delivered from the RLS investment to be established and implemented as part of annual operating plan. · A portion of RLS subsidy will be targeted and level of subsidy varied to encourage initiatives that result in rapid change to environmental signals. · Continue a program of research and knowledge transfer to investigate and field trial issues relevant to sustainable land management in Hawke’s Bay.	Regional Landcare Scheme	· RLS review document produced · The operational plan documents RLS contribution to sustainable land management targets 30 June 2014. · 60% of RLS funding is targeted to strategic investment initiatives · Wetland restoration and protection – 10 projects funded · Riparian or stream retirement – 15 projects funded · Soil conservation projects – 20,000 poles planted on 100 properties · Indigenous bush covenanted – 100 ha
			· Capacity building activities – 20 · Participation in capacity building events – 500 landholders · Catchment management community engagement meetings – 15 events	· Ballance Farm Environmental Awards, field days and judging · Huatokitoki field day and brochure · LandWISE conference and activities · Farm Forestry Association field days and awards · Tree for Bees project meetings
			· Initiate at least one new research or research extension initiative annually. · Dissemination of knowledge through field days and farmer seminars	· GRAAS Economic impact of erosion case studies and economic costs of erosion calculator
Strategic Alliances	· Actively seek collaboration with primary product organisations undertaking research relevant to HB	Pan-sector Group	· Collaborative riparian management agreement between HBRC, Fonterra & DairyNZ · Collaborative agreement with Beef & Lamb to support the provision of LEP to regional landholders · Pan-sector group collaborative agreement to market and report on Industry Good Practice adoption	· Continued facilitation and management of the pan-sector group and process · The formation of cluster groups around dairy, sheep & beef, arable and horticulture
Fit for purpose		Monitoring, evaluation and reporting	· Draft Land Management MER framework produced 30 June 2014 · MERI plan developed for the Tukituki Implementation Plan 31 May 2014	· The MERI plan will incorporate community, Iwi and plan change indicators to which the implementation programs will address. These will be identified by the stakeholders themselves and by the modelling of in-stream water quality through TRIM2

2013/14 Plant Pest Operational Plan

Attachment 1

1.0 Introduction

This operational plan sets out how HBRC will implement the objectives for the control of plant pests as set out in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy 2013 (RPMS). This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.

2.0 Background

HBRC is the management agency for the RPMS. As the management agency HBRC is required to prepare an operational plan that sets out how the strategy is to be implemented. At the end of each financial year, staff will report to Council on the implementation of the operational plan.

This operational plan focuses on the methods of implementing the objectives for the control of plant pests as set out in the RPMS. HBRC’s LTP details the expected level of expenditure by HBRC in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMS. The operational plan details the methods used to achieve those objectives.

3.0 Measuring performance

Staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year on the plant pest control programmes undertaken over the previous financial year through the annual report. This report will indicate the level of achievement towards the RPMS objectives that has been made during the past year. Specifically the report will cover:

· The programmes undertaken compared to the proposed programme as set out in the Operational Plan;

· A summary of all subsidy fund applications received and the outcome of all subsidised work;

· The education initiatives undertaken during the year and the number of presentations and publications or press releases on pests management issues;

· The number of direction notices issued, the level of compliance with those notices, and any follow-up activity undertaken;

· The outcomes of all service delivery operations undertaken;

· The results of biological control research and monitoring, and the number of bio-control releases undertaken;

· Any cross boundary issues that arose and how they were resolved.

4.0 Total control plant pests

The RPMS defines a Total Control plant pest as one that is of limited distribution in the region, and the long-term goal is its eventual eradication. Seventeen plants are listed as Total Control plant pests. The RPMS places these into two categories, Service Delivery and Occupier Responsibility.

For each of these plant categories the operational plan provides a brief description of what activities HBRC will undertake to achieve the RPMS objectives. Information on the budgets for plant pest control is provided in HBRC’s LTP.

Plant Pests

Total Control (Service Delivery)	Management Regime
African feather grass	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Goats rue	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Nassella tussock	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Phragmites	In accordance with the contract between HBRC and Ministry of Primary Industries, HBRC will control every known infestation of this plant annually
Privet	HBRC has altered the delivery of the privet programme to service delivery by a contractor. The response target is for the contractor to control Privet on most properties within at least six weeks of a priority one or two complaint and three months of a priority three complaint. However, this does not apply to hedges or Privet found in rural areas. In these situations, Occupiers are responsible and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. The Standard Operating Procedures for managing Privet are attached to this paper as Appendix 1.
Spiny emex	HBRC may at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
White edged nightshade	HBRC may at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Yellow water lily	HBRC may at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity

Total Control (Occupier Responsibility)	Management Regime
Apple of Sodom	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Apple of Sodom on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Australian sedge	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Australian sedge on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Chilean needle grass	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Chilean Needle grass on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. Chilean needle grass has been identified in summer dry areas of the region — west of Napier, and on land at Maraekakaho, Poukawa, Waipawa, Wakarara, Omakere and Porangahau. There are infestations on river berm land and roadsides. Biosecurity staff will arrange for the control of Chilean needle grass on public land. On private land occupiers are required to control Chilean needle grass in accordance with their agreed management programmes. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so HBRC will encourage the use of the new control tool, Flupropanate as required. HBRC will assist Marlborough and Canterbury Regional Councils in undertaking further Flupropanate trials to provide residue and efficacy data to the Environmental Protection Agency
Cotton thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Cotton thistle on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Japanese honeysuckle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Japanese Honeysuckle on their land in the designated control area, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Pinus contorta	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Pinus contorta on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so HBRC will continue a programme of clearing of Pinus contorta on multiple ownership land in the Rangitaiki area.
Old man’s beard	The RPMS states that North of SH 5 Old man’s beard is not as widespread as it is South of this area, and it is therefore still worthwhile to require occupiers to continue to control OMB north of SH5. South of SH5 staff will respond to complaints. Below SH5 Council will still encourage the control of OMB but will not enforce compliance. Land users below SH5 will still be eligible for the incentive scheme for the control of OMB. HBRC may at its discretion control known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so There are major infestations along the river-berms, especially in Central Hawke’s Bay and the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro River. This land is administered as part of the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme and the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme respectively.
Saffron thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Saffron thistle on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Woolly nightshade	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Woolly nightshade on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC may at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so

5.0 Boundary control plant pests

The RPMS defines a Boundary Control plant pest as one that is abundant in suitable habitats in the region. The long-term goal is to prevent these plant pests spreading to new areas or neighbouring properties. The RPMS requires land occupiers to keep their property boundary free of the Boundary Control plant pest, if it is not present within a defined distance on their neighbour’s property.

Biosecurity staff will respond to a complaint from an affected occupier regarding the control of Boundary Control plant pests. On getting a complaint, a Biosecurity Officer will visit the property of the complainant and adjoining property, to confirm the identity of the plant, and what if any control needs to be carried out. Should control work be necessary the occupier of the property on which the infestation originates will be asked to carry out the necessary control work. A follow up inspection will be carried out to ensure work has been completed and if necessary, enforcement action will be undertaken.

Boundary Control	Management Regime
Bathurst bur	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Bathurst bur on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 5m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Blackberry	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Blackberry on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 10m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Gorse	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Gorse on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 10m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Nodding thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Nodding thistle on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 20m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Ragwort	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Ragwort on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 20m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Variegated thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Variegated thistle on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 5m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.

6.0 Biodiversity plants

These are plants that have a negative ecological effect, and staff believe that they can be successfully controlled, at some sites, without being included in the RPMS. The cost for control of these plants will be borne by HBRC. Plants that presently fall into this category are African love grass, Boneseed, Climbing spindleberry, Cathedral bells, Darwins barberry, Blue passion flower, Asiatic knotweed, Giant knotweed, Banana passionfruit, Cotoneaster, Himalayan honeysuckle, Mothplant, Pennisetum villosum, Purple ragwort and Chilean rhubarb.

7.0 DIDYMO

A Didymo advocate will be employed by HBRC over the months of November 2013 – February 2014 to carry out Didymo advocacy on Hawke’s Bay freshwater waterways, subject to a $20,000 grant from the Ministry of Primary Industries which will fully fund these activities. They will also be required to liaise with any clubs using these waterways, visit sports stores, camping grounds and information centres and to contact tourist providers associated with freshwater activities. Any organizers of activities involving freshwater waterway use will be contacted throughout the year to ensure any equipment in contact with water will be “Checked, Cleaned, Dried”

8.0 Biological control of plant pests

HBRC continues to support research into biological control of plant pests. HBRC’s priorities for further research into bio-control agents during the life of the RPMS are Chilean needle grass, Nassella tussock, and Japanese honeysuckle. Biological control agents for Ragwort, Nodding thistle, and Gorse are widespread and active in the region.

If an occupier requests a bio-control agent, Biosecurity staff will investigate the property to ensure the bio-control agents are not already present and active on their land. If the Bio-control agents are required, HBRC will arrange for their release, if they are available.

9.0 General advice and information

Biosecurity staff will provide general advice on appropriate methods to control plant pests. The information is intended to assist occupiers meet their obligations under the RPMS. Where chemical control is advocated, then safe use, storage, and disposal of all herbicides will be promoted. Other methods of control may include mechanical methods, grubbing, stock management, or biological control.

Biosecurity staff will also assist with the general identification of plants, and provide information and education material about poisonous plants.

Information and advice on plant pests may also be provided at field days and A&P shows.

10.0 Press releases and general information

During the financial year, Biosecurity staff will produce press releases targeting specific plant pests. The press releases will provide information to occupiers to allow them to identify the plants concerned and encourage them to report its location. The plant pests to be targeted and likely timing of the press release are indicated in the table below:

Plant pest		Time of press release
Chilean needle grass		November 2013
Didymo		January 2014
Saffron thistle		January 2014
Woolly nightshade		April 2014
Mothplant		March 2014
Calamint	March 2014

Press releases relating to other Total Control plant pests may be issued during the year depending on interest or growing conditions. In addition, the discovery of any new infestations will be reported if appropriate. Publicity material will be prepared using Weedbusters principles. Weedbusters is a national weed awareness programme involving the department of Conservation and regional councils. HBRC is part of the Weedbusters network.

11.0 Monitoring methods for Total Control plant pests

Staff are undertaking a monitoring programme for total control plant pests using the following guidelines. The objective is to develop a better picture of the effects of control over the duration of the strategy. This monitoring programme will use an estimated 20 days of staff resource and can be completed within existing programmes.

· The two main techniques to be used will be random transects of random properties and plant counts. These are to be done before any control work for the season has been started for that plant pest. They will also be done at the same time each year.

· Transects will vary from 10-100mts in length (depending on terrain) and 1mt wide. All plants that fall within the transect will be counted and the length calculated on GPS. This will represent a portion of a hectare.

· Where multiple transects are used then these will be added together to find the overall number of plants per hectare.

· Where it is practical, plant counts will be done on selected properties of some Total Control Plants which are more than a very limited infestation. These will be done on the same properties each year. Biosecurity staff believe plant counts give a better guide than transects.

· For Total Control Plants of very limited infestation, a plant count will be done to get totals for all of Hawke’s Bay.

· These methods will be used on known infestations only as at 1 July 2006.

12.0 High Risk and QE11 Areas

High-risk areas are defined as picnic sites; old and current dump sites, old homestead sites, recreational areas, rivers, beaches, areas close to a Total Control plant infestation, and native bush areas. These areas are to be inspected as time allows.

13.0 National Pest Plant Accord

The Ministry of Primary Industries manages the National Pest Plant Accord, which has declared 135 plants as unwanted organisms under the Biosecurity Act. HBRC has agreed to be responsible for ensuring that people selling plants are conforming to the requirements of the Act, and not selling or propagating these plants. All plant pests and unwanted organisms are banned from sale and propagation under the Biosecurity Act. All retail outlets that are known to sell plants will be visited at least once per year, to ensure that they are not selling any plant pests listed in the RPMS or any plants on the Pest Plant Accord.

14.0 Management Programmes

Biosecurity staff will negotiate and agree a management programme with Transit NZ and Kiwirail. The management programme will specify how plant pests on their land will be managed.

Management programmes for the control of most Total Control plant pests will be negotiated and agreed with private land occupiers during surveillance and compliance monitoring visits.

Biosecurity staff will negotiate and agree a management programme with the Asset Management section of Council for the control of specific Total Control plant pests that occur on land managed for flood control. The management programme will specify how the Asset Management section will control these plant pests.

15.0 Enforcement

Should a Biosecurity officer observe that an occupier is either in breach of their agreed management programme, or a rule in the RPMS then that officer will issue a direction under section 122 of the Biosecurity Act requiring them to comply. If after the reasonable period of time indicated in the direction notice, the required work has not been completed then Biosecurity staff will provide the occupier with written notice that Council will arrange for the necessary control work to be carried out. The occupier will meet the cost of this control work.

16.0 Subsidy scheme

The incentive scheme budget for the 2013/14 financial year is $50,000. It is intended that the incentive scheme will be mainly targeted at the following plant pests: Chilean needle grass, Japanese honeysuckle, Old man’s beard, Cotton thistle and Saffron thistle.

The standard operating procedures detailing how the incentive scheme will be operated are attached to the operational plan (Appendix 2).

17.0 Site Specific

Please refer to the Animal Pest operational plan for information on site specific control.

18.0 Appendix 1: Standard Operating Procedures for The Control Of Privet

(a) Introduction

These procedures set out in detail how Biosecurity staff will enforce the Privet rule in the Regional Plant Pest and Animal Pest Management Strategy.

(b) Comment

Biosecurity staff will only respond to valid complaints^{^[1]}. An occupier with privet would then be advised of the effects of privet and the privet rule. Complaints will be responded to in the following order of priority:

1^st Priority – Privet is in complainant’s/ enquirer’s property or on a neighbouring property.

2^nd Priority – Privet is not in a neighbouring property but is within 100 metres of the complainant’s/enquirer’s house, or adjacent to or on public land.

3^rd Priority – All other complaints/enquiries.

Where a valid complaint is made about a privet hedge, Biosecurity staff will:

· Advise the occupier of the property (or properties if the hedge is a boundary fence) about the effects of privet flowers.

· The occupier(s) will agree to a management programme, which would require them to keep the hedge trimmed so as to stop flowering.

· If the management programme is not complied with Biosecurity staff will issue a notice of direction under section 122 of the Act to have the hedge trimmed, within a reasonable time period, to remove all flowers. If the notice of direction is not complied with, the occupier will be served with written notice that HBRC will arrange to have the work done.

19.0 Appendix 2: Standard Operating Procedures for Implementing the Plant Pest Subsidy Scheme

(a) Introduction

These procedures set out in detail how Biosecurity staff will operate the plant pest subsidy scheme that is provided for in the Regional Plant Pest and Animal Pest Management Strategy.

(b) Comments

Plant pests having a serious economic impact on farming operations provide their own incentive to occupiers to control them. The subsidy scheme is therefore only available to assist with the control of those plant pests which are either very expensive to control, or whose density has become so low that they no longer cause a significant economic impact to the occupier of the land. Council provides the control work for some total control plant pests with limited distribution. Those plants for which Council conducts the control measures are not eligible for subsidy scheme assistance.

The following table lists the plant pests that subsidy scheme money is available for, and indicates the rationale for the subsidy scheme.

Plant pest	Limited distribution	Difficult to control	Non-economic benefits
Apple of Sodom	x
Australian sedge	x
Chilean needle grass		x
Cotton thistle	x
Japanese honeysuckle		x
Old man’s beard		x
Pinus contorta		x
Privet			x
Saffron thistle	x
Woolly nightshade	x		x

The budget will be split up and allocated towards the control of each plant pest. The Plant Pest Team Leader will determine the actual amount of money allocated to each plant pest each year, based on the size of infestations and the range of management programmes operating.

This will ensure that subsidy scheme money is available during the year, so that effective control can be conducted at the most appropriate time for each plant pest.

An indicative split of the total budget for each total control plant pest is provided in the following table.

1-5% of budget	5-10% of budget	>10% of budget
Privet	Australian sedge	Old man’s beard
Cotton thistle		Pinus contorta
Japanese honeysuckle		Saffron thistle
Apple of Sodom		Chilean needle grass

(d) Type of Assistance

Where there is a very limited distribution of the plant pest then the subsidy scheme will be made available to the occupier of that land to assist with the destruction of all the plants each year, until no more emerge. Biosecurity staff will continue to monitor these sites.

As set out in the Strategy, subsidy scheme money can meet up to 50% of the cost of the work required, with a maximum contribution of $3,000 being paid except for Chilean needle grass. However this amount also does not apply to Privet hedges and Privet in rural areas, only a maximum contribution of $500 will be paid. Privet in a rural area is defined by being outside a 50km speed zone area. In the case of Chilean needle grass, 100% of the cost of the chemical Taskforce and 50% of the cost of contractor application will be met through the subsidy scheme. The maximum contribution for Chilean needle grass will still be $3,000.

Japanese honeysuckle subsidy scheme money is available for the few private land occupiers within the control areas listed in the RPMS.

Old man’s beard subsidy scheme is only available for land occupiers on private rateable land. The majority of infestations of Old Man’s Beard occur along rivers (controlled by the Council); in DoC reserves; or along the State highways (where Transit NZ has responsibility for control). The control of Old Man’s Beard on Council land, DoC land and along the State highway will be managed via the agreed management programmes.

The subsidy scheme will therefore be used to assist occupiers to remove Old Man’s Beard from their properties. It is expected that the majority of subsidy scheme money for Old Man’s Beard will be spent in the Wairoa district, as this is where control operations have been carried out for a number of years.

(e) Accessing Subsidy Scheme Money

No subsidy scheme money will be provided to any occupier unless there is an agreed management programme, which clearly specifies what action the occupier is to carry out. Before Council will pay an occupier any subsidy scheme money the following steps must be taken:

· The plant pest must be clearly identified. The occupier must be clearly informed of what work is expected and the timeframe Council expects work to be completed by.

· The application form for an incentive scheme grant must be completed by the occupier and returned to Council.

· The Biosecurity Team Leader Plant Pests will determine whether the application is approved or not. All applicants will be informed of the outcome of their application for financial assistance.

· Any work completed before the application has been approved will not qualify for financial assistance.

· A Biosecurity team member will inspect the property to ensure that the work has been completed to the agreed standard.

· Payment of the agreed amount will only be made once Council is satisfied that work has been completed to the agreed standard.

20.0 Appendix 3: Guidelines for the Control of Chilean Needle Grass

(effective 1 July 2004)

· Boundary clearance to be 5mts on ALL properties except where dense on both sides of boundary, then do nothing.

· If dense one side and medium to sparse on the other side of boundary, clear 5mts both sides.

· Boundary clearance of 5mts is a MINIMUM only. If necessary a larger boundary clearance distance or Total control can be enforced.

· Particular attention is to be placed on properties that have road frontages. These to be cleared back 5mts in ALL cases.

· Should a property owner not comply then we have the option to prosecute.

· Where grazing is used as a management tool, all satellite plants left within the control area must be removed or sprayed before they set hard seed.

· Management options can include grazing, mowing, spot spray, weed eater or grubbing.

· ALL properties WILL have a current management plan.

· Boundary control distances are a MINIMUM only and Total control is still an option if needed.

· Plant densities are, Dense= 5+/m2, Medium= 2-4/m2 and Low= 0-1/m2

2013/14 Animal Pest Operational Plan

Attachment 2

1.0 Introduction

This operational plan sets out how Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will implement the objectives for the control of animal pests as set out in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy 2013 (RPMS). This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014.

2.0 Background

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the management agency for the RPMS. As the management agency, Council is required to prepare an operational plan that sets out how the strategy is to be implemented. Following the end of each financial year, staff will report to Council on the implementation of the operational plan.

This operational plan focuses on the objectives for the control of animal pests as set out in the RPMS. HBRC’s LTP and Annual Plan details the expected level of expenditure by Council in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMS.

3.0 Measuring Performance

Staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year on the animal pest control programmes undertaken over the previous financial year. This report will indicate the level of achievement towards the RPMS objectives that has been made during the past year. Specifically the report will cover:

· The programmes undertaken compared to the approved programme as set out in the Operational Plan;

· Results from any trend monitoring undertaken, and an assessment of these results;

· The number of complaints and enquires received, and an assessment of those complaints and enquires;

· The education initiatives undertaken during the year — the number of presentations and publications or press releases on pest management issues;

· The number of direction notices issued, the level of compliance with those notices, and any follow-up activity undertaken;

· The outcomes of all service delivery operations undertaken;

· All research initiatives to which contributions have been made during the year; and

· Any cross boundary issues that arose and how they were resolved.

4.0 Animal Pest categories

The RPMS contains two classes of animal pests, Regional Control Animal Pests and Site Specific Animal Pests.

RPMS Classification

Animal Species

Regional control

animal pests

Possums;

Rabbits; and

Rooks.

Site specific control

animal pests

Feral goats;

Feral deer, Feral pigs;

Mustelids (weasels, ferrets, and stoats);

Feral cats; and

Rats (Norway and ship rats).

The operational plan details the strategy objective for the control of the animal pests and provides a brief description of what activities HBRC will undertake to achieve the stated objective.

5.0 Regional Control Animal Pests

Regional control animal pests are pests that have management programmes which cover the entire region. The main focus of this programme is the control of possums through the implementation of Self-help Possum Control Areas (PCAs).

Possums

· The control of possums is the major focus of Council’s animal pest control programme. The strategy objective for possum control is:

That by 30 June 2016 possum control measures will be operating over 900,000 hectares of land, ensuring that possum density on that land is below 5% trap catch.

· To achieve this objective HBRC has a programme of establishment of Possum Control Areas (PCAs) with the support and assistance of land occupiers. Within PCAs, Council arranges for initial possum control to 5% residual trap catch (rtc) using pest control contractors. Occupiers of land which has received such control are required to maintain possum numbers at 5% rtc.

· When an Animal Health Board (AHB) possum control programme is withdrawn from an area, the Council requires land occupiers within that area to form a PCA.

· Total area of productive land with low possum numbers is

· PCA’s 507,740

· AHB 400,000 (approximately)

· Remaining productive land still to be treated 24,998ha’s

o Note: this area is made up of the Nuhaka, Mahanga and Papuni operations that have declined participating in the PCA programme

Biosecurity staff will ensure that occupiers within the proposed PCA are fully aware of the following:

· The relevant content of the RPMS including the requirement for landowners and occupiers to keep possum numbers below 5% rtc;

· The process of establishing a PCA;

· The availability of Council assistance to land occupiers from the Biosecurity Advisory Team;

· Council’s approach to compliance including different levels of monitoring; and

· The consequences of non-compliance, which includes Council undertaking possum control work to meet the 5% rtc requirement through a contractor; and billing the occupier for the cost of that control.

Table 1 outlines the proposed areas to be signed into the PCA programme in preparation for the cessation of the AHB funded control and transition to the PCA programme.

Table 1: 2013/2014 AHB transition to PCA programme

AHB	Hectares
Tutira	4,488

Table 2: 2013/2014 PCA sign ups

There are no signups proposed for the PCA programme in 2013/2014.

There is no initial PCA possum control programmed for 2013/2014 financial year. Once a PCA has received initial control to 5% rtc, occupiers in the PCA are required to maintain possum numbers below a 5% rtc. To assist occupiers in achieving this requirement, the Biosecurity Advisory Team provides the following services within the rural area:

Initial Contact

· Initial contact involves a visit to individual properties to ensure that all occupiers are familiar with the requirements of the PCA relating to maintenance. Occupiers are also briefed on control methods and are encouraged to engage a contractor to carry out the required maintenance work. Occupiers in PCAs are encouraged to carry out maintenance in a three-month period in order to gain maximum benefit from maintenance efforts and reduce the risk of reinvasion from untreated neighbours within the same PCA.

Subsequent Contact

· Follow-up contact regarding maintenance in subsequent years is greatly reduced and will involve reminder letters and phone calls.

Monitoring

· Trend monitoring will be carried out over PCAs to provide an indication of the success of the programme and to provide an early warning of any possible problem areas. Monitors will be undertaken over individual properties to determine the success of individuals control methods, and where it is suspected that the occupier is not meeting the required 5% rtc.

Maintenance Contractors

· The Advisory Team will recommend the use of maintenance contractors to land occupiers in PCAs, audit their work, assist with training opportunities and receive reports from them regarding the work that they are carrying out on behalf of landowners.

· Boundary control

· Currently the southern regional boundary is subject to an agreement between Horizons and HBRC biosecurity staff for possum control to be undertaken as necessary to complement HBRC’s PCA programme.

· In the 2013/14 financial year staff will undertake discussions with the Gisborne District Council to put in place a boundary control programme to assist ratepayers in the northern part of the region on the PCA programme.

URBAN PEST MANAGEMENT

Possum control in an urban environment brings a range of biodiversity and amenity benefits. The Hawkes Bay Urban Biodiversity project commenced with the highly successful Napier hill possum control operation which was completed in June 2009. Bird monitoring has shown significant increases within the urban environment in a range of bird species including Bellbird, Tui and Kereru.

Table 4: Completed Urban & Semi Urban Projects

Urban Pest Management Operational Areas	Hectares
Napier Hill	282
Havelock North Stage 1	461
Havelock North Stage 2	578
Havelock North Stage 3	630
Pakipaki	3,523
Mangateretere	4,866
Poraiti Park Island	1,145.98
Total Hectares	11,485.98

Table 5: Proposed Semi Urban Pest Management Operational Areas 2013/2014

Urban Pest Management Operational Areas	Hectares
Pukekura (Taradale)	452
Karamu (Hastings)	1,575

There is approximately a further 8000 ha of urban or semi urban areas in the broader Napier and Hastings urban area yet to receive initial control. Control will be programmed at 300-1000 ha pa.

Product Subsidy Scheme:

· HBRC provides a subsidy on a range of possum control products. All land occupiers who are part of a possum control area will be given the opportunity of training and advice in the best methods of possum control on their land as part of their ongoing possum control programme. Advice will cover such things as potential possum food sources, suitable possum control methods and appropriate timing of control methods. The subsidised products will be available to all ratepayers, whether they are in a PCA or not.

Bait Stations:

· A range of bait stations will be supplied to occupiers in PCAs who engage the services of a maintenance contractor. Numbers will be limited and contractors are required to install them to a prescribed protocol and all bait station locations must be recorded by Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with that data provided to Council.

QEII

· Landowners who have a QEII block less than 20 hectares on their property are eligible to receive free possum bait sufficient to control possums within the QEII area. For landowners with QEIIs greater than 20 hectares, or where several small QEIIs are collectively greater than 20 hectares, HBRC arranges and pays for possum control.

· Table 6 shows those PCAs that will receive initial contact regarding possum maintenance:

Table 6: First Round of Maintenance 2013/2014

Self-Help Possum Control Areas	Hectares	Maintenance Time Frames
Cross Hills	3,937
Eripiti	3,735
Mangaroa	3,620
Pohora	4,790
Totals	16,082

· The PCAs in Table 6 have already received the first intensive round of visits from the Advisory Team and will be contacted reminding them of the need to carry out maintenance.

Trend Monitoring

· Council monitors 10% of the PCA programme annually. Of this area monitored no more than 10% of monitoring lines should exceed a 5% trap catch.

RABBITS

The RPMS long term goal and strategy objective for rabbits is:

· Long Term Goal: To minimise the adverse effects of rabbits on the region’s biodiversity and economic prosperity.

· Strategy Objective: To ensure that rabbits are maintained below level 4, on the McLean Scale.

To achieve this the Strategy states that HBRC will:

· Conduct targeted surveillance of rabbit prone areas;

· Conduct periodic monitoring of rabbits at known or suspected Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) areas;

· Provide advice and education to land occupiers, including occupiers of small blocks, to help them control rabbits by the most efficient and effective means.

· Monitor for compliance with the rabbit control rule; and

· At its discretion, and as set out in an approved management programme, meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control on rateable land where rabbit numbers exceed 4 on the McLean Scale.

Monitoring

HBRC implements the following monitoring regimes:

(a) Density Monitoring

Density monitoring will involve annual spotlight counts along 21 predetermined rabbit monitoring lines. These lines have been selected based on historical spotlight count routes with approximately 80% of the lines in “rabbit prone areas” and the remainder outside those areas. These lines are to be counted over two nights using national protocols.

(b) RHD Monitoring

In accordance with nationally accepted guidelines, HBRC conducts the sampling of rabbits from at least 15 different sites around the region on an annual basis and test for RHD. This monitoring will be used to confirm the presence or absence of RHD, or any levels of immunity that may be building in the rabbit population. The information gathered from this monitoring will be entered on the Rabbit Database and will provide information that may be used to assess the need for greater intervention in rabbit control.

(c) Compliance Monitoring

If Biosecurity staff receives a complaint or enquiry about a property with high rabbit numbers then staff or a contractor commissioned by HBRC will visit the property and carry out an assessment of rabbit numbers. If densities are found to be greater than 4 on the McLean scale, the occupier may be issued with a notice of direction under section 122 of the Biosecurity Act to comply with the RPMS rule which requires landowners to maintain rabbit populations below 4 on the McLean scale from mid- January to mid-August. Complaints will only be acted on from mid- January to mid-August. The RPMS states that HBRC will at its discretion meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control.

Education

· Advice and information on rabbit control will be provided to ratepayers on request. Contact details of contractors will also be provided. Rabbit control field days may be held where demand requires it. Information on rabbit population trends based on the density monitoring and RHD monitoring will be made available to ratepayers and farmer groups.

Incentive Scheme

· Where there are incidents of rabbit populations exceeding 4 on the McLean Scale, the occupier of that land may qualify for financial assistance from HBRC to assist with the cost of rabbit control. Before any such assistance is agreed to by HBRC, the occupier will be required to have an agreed management programme, which will specify the method of rabbit control and set out a long-term management programme aimed at limiting rabbit populations in the future.

Service Delivery

· HBRC do not use staff to conduct any rabbit control operations. The major focus is on monitoring rabbit populations to ensure rabbit populations are maintained at or below level four on the McLean Scale, and to provide information and advice to occupiers. In certain circumstances the incentive scheme will be used to assist land occupiers with rabbit control, with Council providing an advisory or contract management role.

Map 1: Annual rabbit night count routes

Map 2: Annual RCV sample sites.

ROOKS

The RPMS long term goal and objective for rooks is:

· Long Term Goal: To eradicate rooks from Hawke’s Bay.

· Strategy Objective: From north of the ‘rook clear line’ destroy all known rookeries by 30 June 2016. From south of the ‘rook clear line’ reduce rook numbers to 4,000 birds by 31 December 2016 and maintain rooks, such that numbers do not exceed that amount in the future.

To achieve this the Strategy states that:

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide information to land occupiers on rook identification, the potential adverse effects that they cause, who to contact for rook control, and the risks of inappropriate control.

· North of the ‘rook clear line’, all known rookeries will be destroyed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council by 30 June 2016, subject to climatic conditions being suitable.

· South of the ‘rook clear line’, as described in Figure 5, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide an annual rook control service, when climatic conditions are suitable, to reduce the population to a maximum of 4,000 birds by 31 December 2016. Rook numbers will then be kept at or below this level.

Service Delivery

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will arrange for all rook control operations.

Eradication Zone

In the northern half of the region, it is intended to eradicate rooks by 30 June 2016. HBRC will employ suitable contractors to undertake annual control work over all rookeries in the eradication zone. HBRC will conduct an annual rookery count in this part of the region to determine the effects of the control contract. Operations will be co-ordinated with Gisborne District Council in this zone who has reported low numbers of rooks present.

Rook Control in Action:

Map 3: Aerial Rook Programme

Map 4: Extinct Rookeries

Control Zone

In the southern half of the region, it is intended to reduce rook numbers to below 4000 by 31 December 2016, and then maintain rook numbers below this level. Council will arrange for suitable contractors to undertake annual control work. The main control work will be conducted during spring and summer.

Biosecurity staff will respond to complaints or enquires about rooks in the Control Zone. Where rooks appear to be causing damage to agricultural crops or causing a general nuisance, Council will arrange for control work to be conducted, if Biosecurity staff believe that a successful result is possible. This decision will be based on the weather and availability of other food sources.

6.0 Education

Advice and information on identifying rooks will be provided to ratepayers on request. Specific information about rooks, the difficulty of control and how best to manage rooks will be made available to specific grower organisations in late winter, to assist farmers identify potential problems and provide possible solutions before crops are planted.

7.0 Site Specific Pests

Site Specific Pests will only have management programmes in place in specific sites and under certain criteria. There are 30 site specific animal pest community groups currently being supported. The RPMS lists feral goats, feral deer, feral pigs, mustelids (weasels, ferrets, and stoats), feral cats, and rats (Norway and ship rats) as Site Specific Animal Pests. Where there are sufficient benefits to doing so, and upon land user request, HBRC may meet up to 50% of the cost of control to any land occupier. HBRC will provide “Environment Topics” on the best methods to control these pests in response to public enquires.

8.0 QEII Covenanted Land

Site specific animal pest control on QEII blocks outside PCAs will be in accordance with an approved management plan with individual occupiers. HBRC may consider treatment of pests on QEII blocks less than 20 hectares or other land with high ecological value where the conservation values of that land justify such control. Financial assistance for the control of animal pests on covenanted land smaller than 20 hectares may be available on request from the land occupier. Before any assistance is provided HBRC must assess the land, and a management plan agreed between the occupier and HBRC.

9.0 Research Initiatives

There is one initiative currently under way:

Bird count monitoring

· Monitoring has been completed on one urban site (Napier hill) and one rural site (Kuru range) to assess native bird numbers after possum control taking place. Follow up monitoring will continue to assess the changes in bird numbers over time.

10.0 Advice And Information

Public inquiries regarding the control of animal pests listed in the RPMS will be dealt with as noted in this Plan. For inquiries regarding control of magpies, HBRC has a limited number of traps which it can make available to occupiers to conduct their own control. For all other animals of concern information will be provided to assist people undertake their own control. This information may be by way of sending them Environment Topics, or providing people with a list of pest control contractors who could assist them control the animal of concern.

11.0 Argentine ants

HBRC is currently undertaking surveillance activities to access the extent of the argentine ant infestation in the region. Work is also ongoing to build public awareness of this pest and best practice control guidelines.

12.0 Wide Scale predator (Cat and Mustellid) Control (poutiri Ao Tane)

HBRC is currently involved in a multi-agency initiative. The ‘Poutiri Ao Tane ‘ project is a community based initiative with strong backing from several Agencies including HBRC, DOC, HDC, LandCare Research and local community and Iwi groups.

The project is ambitious and hopes to achieve positive biodiversity and social outcomes over an 8,000 hectare area, encompassing DOC reserves and private farmland. The flagship of this project is the release of bush birds such as Kaka and Kakariki in Boundary stream Mainland Island and the reestablishment of sea birds on the Maungaharuru range, including Black, Cooks and Mottled petrel.

Longer term, the HBRC’s main objectives in regard to Wide Scale predator control are to:

· Identify a pest control regime that substantially reduces the current cost of top predator (feral cats and mustelid) control within a rural landscape containing significant bush fragments

· Provide additional protection to important habitat or sites of regional significance and native species that will benefit from top predator control.

· Support and empower the local community to set and attain achievable biodiversity protection goals.

13.0 Regional pest management strategy review

HBRC was required to propose a reviewed pest management strategy by December 2011. This review was subject to an environment court appeal and has been completed. The RPMS 2013 has been adopted by HBRC.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 June 2013

SUBJECT: Councillor Remuneration

Reason for Report

1. The Remuneration Authority (Authority) wrote to Council on 30 April 2013 providing information on remuneration post elections 2013. Base salaries were set for the Chairman and Councillor positions and an additional pool was provided for positions of responsibility. The distribution of this pool is to be decided by this current Council and a submission is to be made to the Authority by 19 July 2013 so that the Authority can proceed with a determination prior to the 2013 elections.

2. In the Council meeting held on 29 May 2013 it was requested that further clarification on the distribution of the additional pool was provided and also that the Authority paper “answers to frequently asked questions” be distributed to Councillors.

3. The “answers to frequently asked questions” document was subsequently distributed to Councillors later that same day, and this paper provides clarification of the options to be considered for the distribution of the pool amongst the positions of responsibility to enable Council to make a recommendation to the Authority.

Background

4. The Authority has allowed an additional pool of up to 1.5 times the base Councillor salary to be distributed to positions of responsibility, which equates to $70,050. Allocation of this pool is at the discretion of this Council but must be submitted to and approved by the Authority. Council is not required to distribute the entire pool and any unspent funds cannot be carried forward to the next financial year.

5. The Authority has identified the roles of deputy Chairperson and Committee Chairperson as positions of additional responsibility.

6. There may also be other positions that Council may seek to include. Before approving any additional pay for these extra positions of responsibility the Authority would expect to see evidence of significant extra workload and/or responsibility required on an ongoing basis to carry out such positions.

7. The Authority has provided guidelines around what an individual Councillor can receive for positions of responsibility.

7.1. Additional remuneration for a Deputy Chairperson should not exceed 40% of the base Councillor salary, and

7.2. Additional remuneration for Committee Chairpersons or Portfolio Leaders or other Councillor positions of additional responsibility should be limited to between 5% and 25% of the base Councillor salary.

8. Council is being asked to submit proposals to the Authority before the election so that candidates are fully informed of the remuneration they will receive when they are elected. There may be some changes after the elections in regards to the allocation of duties among members. If this is the case Council can apply to the Authority to vary the way the additional pool of funding is allocated.

9. The Authority has confirmed that there will no longer be any meeting fees available as the base salary calculations have allowed for this.

10. Strategy and Planning staff have advised that there are no plan hearings expected in the 2013/14 year so no allowance is recommended to cover Councillor workloads on plan hearings.

Scenarios

11. Attachment 1 contains two scenarios for Councillors to consider and make a recommendation to the Authority. The current scenario is that there is a $4,500 differential between a Councillor with and without chairman responsibilities. The broad assumptions for each scenario are:

11.1. Scenario 1 - Four Committee Chairs and the Deputy Chairman (full allocation of funding pool based on an even split between the four Committee Chars and the balance to the Deputy Chairman as to fit within the limits)

11.2. Scenario 2 - Five Committee Chairs and the Deputy Chairman (full allocation of funding pool based on an even split between the six roles).

12. Attachment 2 contains the number of Committee meetings held and planned for each Committee during the 2012/13 year.

What Will Happen After 2013?

13. In the year prior to an election the Authority will look into all of the key components of remuneration and do a full review of the criteria used to determine base salaries. In the two mid term years the Authority will review amounts of remuneration, taking into consideration any changes in Council size indices and any general remuneration increase. No base councillor remuneration will decrease as a result of their recalculation. The Authority will apply any changes automatically to the remuneration levels set in the determination.

Remuneration of Maori Representatives

14. For consistency with the Authority’s view on informing candidates of the remuneration they will receive when they are elected, this paper has made proposals regarding the levels of remuneration for the Chairman of the Maori Committee, members of the Maori Committee and tangata whenua appointed members of the Maori Committee who are appointed to plan hearings.

15. On 18 April 2012, Council resolved that the Chairman of the Maori Committee would be paid a salary equivalent to that paid to a Councillor without committee chair responsibilities and that no meeting allowances would be paid. This paper proposes that this relativity be maintained for the 2013/14 financial year.

16. Also on 18 April 2012, Council resolved that the meeting fee payable to members of the Maori Committee be maintained at $265 per day. This paper proposes that these fees are increased to $270 per day to reflect the 2% increase in the base Councillor remuneration. This paper also proposes that the travel allowance paid to members of the Committee should increase from $0.74 per km to $0.77 per km in line with the travel allowance rates of Councillors.

17. At the same meeting, Council resolved that tangata whenua appointed members (excluding the Chair) of the Maori Committee who are appointed to plan hearings that are not related to resource hearings be remunerated at the hourly rates set out in the applicable Local Government Elected Members Determination for all hearing time, as defined in that determination. This paper proposes that payment of this allowance be continued for the 2013/14 financial year.

Decision Making Process

18. 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:

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

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

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

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are the representatives elected to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council at the 2013 local government election.

18.5. Options to be considered are outlined in this paper.

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

18.7. 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.

18.8. Council is required to respond to the Remuneration Authority with their recommendation for the distribution of the funding pool amongst the positions of responsibility.

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends 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. Resolves the level of payments set out below to be made to Councillors in positions of responsibility for the period after the 2013 elections until the end of the 2013/14 financial year, consistent with the funding pool advised by the Authority, and recommends to the Authority that these payment levels be included in the determination for the period after the 2013 elections until the end of the 2013/14 financial year.

Role

Position of Responsibility Remuneration

Deputy Chairman of Council

Chairman of:

Corporate & Strategic Committee

Environment & Services Committee

Regional Planning Committee

Regional Transport Committee

Hearings Committee

3. Resolves the level of remuneration for the Chairman of the Maori Committee be set, for the remainder of the 2013/14 financial year from the date of appointment subsequent to the 2013 elections, at the salary for an elected member of Council without committee chairman responsibilities and notes that this payment of the salary is not funded from the net Council remuneration pool advised by the Authority.

4. Resolves that the level of meeting fees and travel allowance paid to members of the Maori Committee be increased to $270 per day and $0.77 per km from the date of appointment subsequent to the 2013 elections.

5. Resolves that tangata whenua appointed members of the Maori Committee (excluding the Chairman of the Maori Committee) who are appointed to Plan hearings that are not related to resource consent hearings be remunerated at the rates set out in the applicable Local Government Elected Members Determination for all hearing time, as defined in that determination.

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1 View	Councillor Remuneration Options Table
2 View	Council Committee Meetings 2012-13

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 June 2013

SUBJECT: Maungaharuru Tangitu Treaty Settlement

Reason for Report

1. Maungaharuru-Tangitū Inc (MTI) initialled their Treaty Settlement Deed (Deed) on 21 March 2013. The Deed has subsequently been ratified by their hapu and was signed on 25 May 2013. The Deed will now form the basis of a Treaty Settlement Bill that is expected to be enacted into legislation during 2014.

2. Through the Treaty Settlement negotiation process, HBRC’s role in the management of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve and a fund associated with that reserve has been clarified.

3. This report updates Council on the content of the Deed relevant to HBRC, and sets out the future management regime for the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve (TSCR), the Reserve Fund, and a new fund to be established in accordance with the Deed.

Background

4. Over the past several years HBRC have been involved in negotiations with MTI to assist them achieve some of their cultural redress aspirations. At the time of drafting the 2012/22 LTP, the Office of Treaty Settlements believed that through the Treaty settlement process and legislation it would be possible to transfer, at no cost to HBRC, the ownership of the TSCR to HBRC and in return HBRC would provide, at no cost to MTI or Office of Treaty Settlements, approximately 20 ha of land within Tutira Country Park. HBRC consulted on this proposal in its draft 2012/22 LTP. Submissions to the LTP were generally supportive of this initiative and as a result HBRC agreed in principle to the consideration of the exchange of land.

5. Subsequent to the adoption of the LTP, and until the Treaty negotiation process was well advanced, staff continued to work with MTI to assist them to meet their Treaty aspirations of owning land that would enable their hapu to reconnect with Lake Tutira on the understanding the central government would, through an all of government approach, facilitate the proposed transfer of TSCR to HBRC.

6. Early in 2013 as the draft Treaty legislation was being prepared it became clear that it would not be possible for central government to transfer TSCR to HBRC without going through Reserves and Other Land Disposal (ROLD) legislation. Such legislation is not a priority for government and therefore would not have been able to be progressed in parallel with the Treaty Settlement Legislation.

7. Ownership of TSCR therefore remains with the Crown, as does the tree crop growing on Reserve land (approximately 300ha), and the Reserve Fund (approx $3m) being the net proceeds from the Reserve since 1985 when management and control of the Reserve was vested in HBRC’s predecessor organisation the Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board. This fund is held by HBRC on behalf of the Crown and may only be used for the management of TSCR.

8. Included within the MTI Treaty Settlement Deed is a provision for HBRC to establish a separate fund into which money held within the Reserve Fund and surplus to requirements for the ongoing management of TSCR may be transferred. The new fund, to be called the Catchments Fund, may be used for “avoiding, remedying or mitigating soil erosion and its effects on the environment (as defined in Section 2 of Resource Management Act 1991) and maintaining the physical, chemical and biological qualities of soil in the catchments”. The catchments referred to are Esk, Te Ngarue, Waipātiki and Arapawanui (also known as Aropaoanui).

9. Staff have yet to finalise financial forecasts for TSCR, however expect that in the order of $1M will be available to transfer into the Catchments Fund.

10. The following sets out the management regime for TSCR, its associated Reserve Fund and the new Catchments Fund.

Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve

11. TSCR covers approximately 550ha of land of which approximately 300ha is planted in commercial forest.

12. Control and management of TSCR is vested in HBRC under Section 16 of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (Act). TSCR is a reserve under the Act. Control and management will continue to be undertaken such as to meet the soil conservation aims and to benefit Hawke’s Bay including;

12.1. State Highway protection, and

12.2. Land stability.

13. The Crown agency responsible for TSCR is Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). The management of TSCR will be guided by the TSCR Management Plan that will be prepared by HBRC in conjunction with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Inc (MTI) or their post settlement entity, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT), LINZ, and New Zealand Transport Agency. The Management Plan shall cover a period of approximately six years and be programmed for completion to enable budgets to be included within HBRC’s Long Term financial plans. (Note: TSCR is currently managed in accordance with TSCR Management Plan 2007/12. This Plan will be reviewed during the 2013/14 financial year.)

Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Fund

14. HBRC holds a fund being the net proceeds earned from TSCR since its vesting with Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board in 1985 (the Reserve Fund). As at 1 July 2012 this fund held $3,179,559.00.

15. In reviewing the current TSCR Management Plan, HBRC will develop financial forecasts for income and expenditure arising from their control and management of TSCR.

16. Any funds not required for the management of TSCR will be available to transfer to the Catchments Fund provided for in the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Deed.

17. HBRC will manage the Reserve Fund and will use its best endeavours to jointly agree with MTT the use of the fund, including the financial forecasts for the Reserve Fund and the surplus amount available for transfer to the Catchments Fund and when such surplus may be transferred. The primary purpose of the Reserve Fund shall be to meet the costs of managing TSCR in accordance with Section 16 of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941. It is acknowledged that this includes afforestation of a portion of the Reserve as set out in section 134 of that Act. It should be noted that the Crown through LINZ is the owner of this Fund and they may have some specific criteria that they wish to apply to its management.

18. For clarity it is recognised that the cost of development of Management Plans for TSCR will be met from the Reserve Fund.

Catchments Fund

19. A Catchment Fund will be established in accordance with the Treaty Settlement Legislation for Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust. At least every three years HBRC will review the financial forecasts for TSCR and determine if any money held in the Reserve Fund is surplus to that required to manage the Reserve. HBRC may transfer money from the Reserve Fund to the Catchments Fund if, in its opinion, HBRC considers the transfer does not adversely affect HBRC’s ability to manage and control TSCR in such a manner as to, best conserve the soil of TSCR and prevent injury to other land. Three yearly reviews will be completed prior to the development by HBRC of each draft Long Term financial plans, and the outcome of that review shall be included within those Plans.

20. HBRC and MTT will jointly agree on the application of any money in the Catchment Fund. A Management Plan for the catchments will be prepared and jointly agreed between HBRC and MTT to guide the work to be funded from the Catchments Fund. The Plan shall be regularly revised and updated as necessary. Neither party shall unreasonably withhold their agreement to the Management Plan or any proposed works.

21. While HBRC and MTI have yet to discuss the possible use of the Catchments Fund, MTI have expressed an interest in initial discussions on a programme of work that will result in improved water quality in Lake Tutira.

Impact on the Annual Plan 2013/14

22. Staff will make a number of wording changes to the HBRC Annual Plan 2013/14 to clarify Crown ownership of TSCR commercial tree crop and the Reserve Fund associated with TSCR. HBRC auditors have advised that it is appropriate for HBRC to retain the value of the commercial tree crop on TSCR and the value of the fund on HBRC books as it has management and control of TSCR legally vested in it.

23. It is anticipated that provision will need to be made for the Catchments Fund in the HBRC 2014/15 Annual Plan as legislation is expected to be enacted during the 2014 calendar year.

Decision Making Process

24. 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 the Environment & Services Committee receives the report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] The person making the complaint must be able to demonstrate that the privet affects their health. For example that they live close by, or visit the area on a regular basis during flowering.

Outcomes	Improved economic return with reduced environmental impact via best practice adoption	Diffuse run-off from farms reduced	Sustainable use of fragile hill country and steeplands	Improved understanding & targeted investment of ecological servicing	Improved community understanding of landscape appropriate best practice
Foresight & Strategy		· Sub-catchment hotspots biophysical and socio-economic characterisation	· Identification of soil conservation investment priorities in the Tukituki catchment	· LMT involvement in the development of the biodiversity strategy	· Development of a industry good practice program in collaboration with Pan-sector group
Foresight & Strategy	· Tukituki Plan Change 6 · Mohaka/Taharua Plan Change · Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro, Ahuriri & Karamu Plan Change · Whangawehi, Whakaki catchment plans
Investment	· Huatokitoki Project Farm Field day	· RLS investment in riparian and wetland protection · Phosphorus management planning in the Porangahau sub-catchment · Development of IGP nitrate-N leaching rates, nutrient budgeting protocols and processes in collaboration · SFF / FAR Tukituki Choices project	· RLS investment in soil conservation programs · GRAAS economic impacts of erosion project · Dryland forest project · East Coast Dryland Project · Wairoa Hill Country Project · Farm forestry activities and awards · McRae Trust field day	· RLS investment in riparian and wetland protection · Trees for Bees project	· GRAAS economic impacts of erosion project · Awareness raising in relation to Tukituki Plan Change 6 · Awareness raising and field days in priority sub-catchments
Investment	· Ballance Farm Environmental Awards · Willow and Poplar nursery
Strategic alliances	· Working with the pan-sector to collaborate on initiatives and to consult to ensure	· Development of MOU with Fonterra · Riparian project collaboration with DairyNZ and Fonterra	· Investigation into potential for collaboration with Beef & Lamb around the provision of LEP’s to HB landholders	· Tutira Poutiri Project · Nature Central MoU development · Maraetotara Tree Trust Meetings · Waimararama, Porangahau, Mahanga Coastal Dune Groups	· Dairy Liaison group
Strategic alliances	· Pastoral Steering committee · Pan Sector group · Collaboration with Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme team
Fit for purpose	·	· Identification of phosphorus critical source areas course for LMT	· 340 204 Erosion monitoring	· 339 202 Riparian investigations · 340 206 Wetland monitoring · 340 202 Soil Quality monitoring	· S-Map soil mapping project · 340 203 Land use monitoring
Fit for purpose	· Development of a Land Management MERI plan · Development of a Tukituki Implementation MERI plan

Occupier		Owner
First Name:		First Name:
Surname:		Surname:
Property Address:		Property Address:


Postal Address:		Postal Address:


Phone Number:		Phone Number:
Mobile Phone:		Mobile Phone:
j Key Decision Maker		j Key Decision Maker
Signature:
	(Occupier)		(Owner)

	(Date)		(Date)

(Hawkes Bay Regional Council)			(Date)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
26 April 2013	HDC	6	Resource Consent – Land Use To establish a Visitor Centre and viewing platform comprising of a cafe, theatre, retail, and education area within a site identified as an Outstanding Natural Feature.	Te Mata Park Trust Board Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified by HDC Discretionary	31 May 2013 · Submission period closed 24 May 2013 · Council has provided some funding for the project. · No submission lodged.
10 April 2013	HDC	5	Release of Draft District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.	HDC	Draft (non-notified)	31 May 2013 · As a Draft the document has no legal status yet under the Resource Management Act. The Draft is precursor to a Proposed District Plan HDC intend publicly notifying in September 2013. · Various informal comments made by staff on draft content, particularly relating to natural hazards, HPUDS and RPS Change4, riparian management. · Deadline for comments is 31 May 2013.
5 April 2013	NCC	4	Draft Plan Change 10 A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Draft (non-notified)	31 May 2013 · As a Draft the document has no legal status yet under the Resource Management Act. The Draft is precursor to a Proposed District Plan HDC intend publicly notifying in September 2013. · Informal comments made by staff on draft content relating to HPUDS and RPS Change4. · Deadline for comments is 31 May 2013.
14 Feb 2013	NCC	3	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide and develop an existing site to create a mix of 17 residential lots and 2 lots to be vested as roads on Oak Road, Poraiti, Napier.	Silverhill Trustees Ltd Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified by NCC Restricted Discretionary	31 May 2013 · Awaiting further stormwater management details. · Submission period closed 15 March 2013. · Submission lodged by Council opposing the application due to concerns regarding the site coverage and stormwater solutions proposed by the applicant.
24 May 2010	NCC	2	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as Main Rural on 66 Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Brian Nicholls	Notified by NCC Restricted Discretionary (hearing pending)	31 May 2013 · Permitted Activity status letter issued by Council for discharge of on-site wastewater. · Pending hearing by NCC. · Previously HBRC lodged a submission opposing proposal unless all 6 lots were fully serviced. HBRC staff have had discussions since lodging submission with NCC and applicant. Discussions focused on stormwater and wastewater design options for the proposed subdivision.
23 Aug 2010	NCC	1	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus Ltd	Notified by NCC Restricted Discretionary (subject to appeal)	31 March 2013 · No further update. Application on hold pending hearing by NCC re Plan Change 7. · Previously HBRC lodged submission opposing proposal. NCC declined consent and applicant appealed NCC’s decision. HBRC joined appeal proceedings as an interested party. HBRC’s interests primarily relate to stormwater management and disposal.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Chevron Enforcement Order Update	7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

1 View	2013/14 Plant Pest Operational Plan
2 View	2013/14 Animal Pest Operational Plan

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Report
2 View	Map for Statutory Advocary Report