Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 13 May 2015

Time:                9.00 am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 11 March 2015

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 11 March 2015

5.         Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings                  3

6.         Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                 9

Decision Items

7.         Board of Inquiry Draft Decision on Plan Change 6 9:15 am                                      11

8.         Regional Cycle Plan                                                                                                    15

9.         Infrastructure Insurance                                                                                              51

10.       Biosecurity Operational Plans 2015-16                                                                       71

11.       Asset Management Plans for Adoption                                                                     121

12.       TBfree                                                                                                                        123

13.       Te Mata Park 11:00 am                                                                                            129

Information or Performance Monitoring

14.       Environmental Monitoring & Reporting and Land & Water Aotearoa Website Update 9:30 am                                                                                                                              141

15.       CHBDC Wastewater Treatment Compliance Update 9:45 am                                145

16.       Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project Update                                                       147

17.       Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                                                                149

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

SUBJECT: Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings

 

Reason for Report

1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require follow-ups. All items indicate who is responsible for each, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

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

 

Recommendation

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the report “Follow-up Items from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings”.

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

1

Follow-up Items from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings

 

 

  


Follow-up Items from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings

11 March 2015

 

Follow-up/Request

Person Responsible

Status/Comment

1

Resource consents for bottling plants

I Maxwell

A report on the RMA resource consent application and decision-making processes will be provided at the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 20 May in addition to the information provided via email on 4 March (appended following)

2

Hole Punch Facilities

M Hulena

Two hole punches have been supplied; they are located in the Councillor Room and Council Chambers.

 


Ref #1 above

From: Iain Maxwell
Sent: Wednesday, 4 March 2015 9:13 a.m.
To: Fenton Wilson; Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe; Debbie Hewitt; Peter Beaven; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford
Cc: Liz Lambert; Monique Hulena
Subject: Water bottling

Hi all

We will prepare a more detailed paper on water use for a future meeting but as I indicated this email provides some background information on water bottling in particular that you may find useful.

The consents team have re-assessed the consent numbers and potential allocated volume for the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System (i.e. unconfined and confined aquifers) as currently defined in the RRMP. This doesn’t pick up some of the smaller aquifers (e.g. Poraiti, Ohiti) and river valley takes.   Please note that the aquifer extent might change in the future depending on the outcome of Heretaunga groundwater modelling work.

Because not all consented takes have annual volumes, we have had to make some assumptions to convert the weekly volumes into annual volumes:

Assumptions:

-          Irrigation take annual volume where not already specified= weekly volume x 16 weeks

-          Frost takes annual volume = 30 hours at the consented rate of take

-          Industrial/potable etc. where not specified annual volume = weekly volume x 40 weeks

 

Total allocation (i.e. including stream depleting takes) = ~ 151 million m3/year

Total groundwater takes = 124 million m3/year

Total stream depleting takes = 26 million m3/year

Total number of consents (incl stream depleting takes) = 1,687

Total number groundwater consents = 1,512

Total number stream depleting takes = 175


Summary by use, note that bottling as a use falls into the potable and this includes the municipal supplies:

cid:image006.png@01D050DD.0819D6D0

There are currently 7 consents within the Heretaunga groundwater zone that have water bottling as a purpose (they may also use water for irrigation).  The combined allocation for these is approximately 3 million m3/yr or about 2% of the current allocated volume.

Hopefully this is enough for now, please let me know if there is any other information you need.

Regards

Iain

Iain MaxwellGroup Manager Resource Management


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

SUBJECT: Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

1.      Under standing orders, SO 3.7.6:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,

(a)     That item may be discussed at that meeting if:

(i)    that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii)   the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b)     No resolution, decision, or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

2.      The Chairman will request any items councillors wish to be added for discussion at today’s meeting and these will be duly noted, if accepted by the Chairman, for discussion as the final Agenda Item.

 

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following minor items not on the agenda, for discussion as item 17:

 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Board of Inquiry Draft Decision on Plan Change 6

 

Reason for Report

1.      The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the Board of Inquiry’s draft decision on the Council’s Plan Change 6. 

High Court Referral to the Board of Inquiry

2.      The High Court decision in December 2014 found that there were points of law to be addressed and it directed the Board to review narrow elements of its decision (Rule TT1(j)) and any consequential amendments to the RWSS consent conditions).

3.      Both the earlier Board of Inquiry decision and the High Court ruling have addressed all other provisions in Plan Change 6 and these are beyond the scope of any comments back to the Board of Inquiry and beyond legal challenge.

4.      The Board of Inquiry is clear that Plan Change 6 (other than condition TT1 (j)) has been considered under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011, rather than the 2014 NPS. However the 2014 NPS, which came into effect in July 2014, requires that all councils fully implement the national policy statement, including the National Objectives Framework, by 31 December 2025. This will mean a review of Plan Change 6 before that date.

Draft decision

5.      Following various meetings and exchanges of memoranda as to how the review process should be carried out, the scope of the review, and most latterly the relevance of the Change 5 decision on the review, the Board released its draft decision on 1 May 2015.

6.      Parties have until 15 May 2015 to submit comments on the draft decision which the Board will consider before making a final decision.

7.      The draft decision is 52 pages long and is to be regarded as an addendum to its final substantive decision dated 18 June 2014.

8.      It reconsiders and amends Rule TT1(j) with a consequential amendment to Policy TT4(1)(g).

9.      In essence, Rule TT1(j) determines which farming properties will need to obtain a resource consent if the limit for Nitrate-Nitrogen or Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) are still exceeded after 1 June 2020.

10.    While there were a number of matters that parties had raised and the Board considered, the two key elements were:

10.1.    The exceptions - which farming properties should be excluded from requiring a resource consent under this rule and;

10.2.    The Sub-catchment vs Contributing Catchment approach - how farms causing or contributing to the exceedance should be identified.

Exceptions

11.    In terms of the exceptions, there was a significant level of agreement between the parties following the conference held in late February, which the Board accepted. 

12.    This means that plantation forestry, and low intensity farming systems (defined as farm properties or farming enterprises that contain no more than 8 stock units per hectare including permanent horticultural and viticultural crops (such as orchards, vineyards) and lifestyle properties; but not including a) Properties used for the production of rotational vegetable crops, b) dairy farms; and c) grazed forage crops ) will be excluded from requiring a consent in the event that the Nitrate and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen limits are exceeded.

The Sub-catchment vs Contributing Catchment approach

13.    HBRC advocated a ‘contributing catchment’ approach, reasoning that all farms above a monitoring point where the DIN level is exceeded contribute to that exceedance. HBRC acknowledged that this approach would likely require several hundred farms to obtain consent by 2020.

14.    The Environmental Groups supported a sub-catchment approach, reasoning that it would capture those properties that are responsible for cumulatively causing an exceedence, would promote efficiency and fewer farms would need a consent.

15.    The Board found that both of these approaches would be a significant departure from the Water Management Zone approach taken in the plan and considered it to be well beyond the scope of the matters referred back to it by the High Court.

16.    The Board did however make a refinement to the condition to provide clarity as to where the limits should be measured. 

17.    Instead of the condition reading:

 ‘…any measured exceedence of the ... limits ... in the relevant mainstem or tributary of a river…’,

it now reads

‘…any measured exceedence of the ... limits ... at the downstream HBRC monitoring site nearest to the farm property or farming enterprise in the relevant mainstem or tributary of a river…’

18.    The effect of this is that if the nearest downstream monitoring point does not indicate an exceedence but there is an exceedance at a monitoring point further down the catchment, only the farm contributing in between those sites would need a consent. The likely result of this is a reduction in the number of farms within the catchment requiring a consent if the DIN/nitrate limits are exceeded. Initial estimates are approximately 300 farms will require consents, down from the original estimate of 700. More details on consent numbers will be provided at the meeting. 

19.    There is still the challenge of identifying the area of groundwater flow that contributes to any exceedance, and consequently the far properties that lie above it.  However, there is provision in the plan change for a procedural guideline to be developed to work through that process.

HBRC comments on the Draft Decision

20.    Overall, staff are satisfied that the draft decision on Tukituki Plan Change 6 reflects an appropriate middle ground in terms of reducing the number of consents required while still being able to ensure that farms within both the surface water and groundwater capture zones that are contributing to the immediate downstream exceedence are able to be identified.

21.    It is proposed that any comments from HBRC to the Board should support the draft decision without any changes sought.

Where to from here 

22.    Comments on the draft decision are allowed only on the narrow elements of the BoI decision, and must be made by 15 May. The Board will then consider them and issue a final decision. 

Decision Making Process

23.    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 decision is part of a legal process for an activity that has already been consulted on.

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee Receives the report entitled “Board of Inquiry Draft Decision on Plan Change 6”.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Lodges comments with the Board of Inquiry indicating its support for the Draft Decision as issued in relation to Rule TT(1)(j).

 

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Regional Cycle Plan

 

Reason for Report

1.      The draft Regional Cycle Plan was approved by the Regional Cycling Governance Group in late March for release for consultation.

2.      The draft Plan is being presented to each participating council and public feedback is sought on the Plan through news releases, the HBRC website and by direct contact with all known cycling stakeholders. Feedback is sought on the Plan but as this is not a formal consultation process, there will be no submissions hearings. Suggested improvements to the Plan will be considered by the Regional Cycling Governance Group, with technical support from the working group.

3.      A decision is required at this meeting as the extremely short timeframe for feedback means that this should be formally endorsed prior to the Council meeting on 27 May. Under changes made to the Terms of Reference for Committees in July 2009 a Committee may make a decision that is a binding decision of Council if the matter is one of urgency and is agreed to by the Committee unanimously. It is suggested that the Committee exercise this delegated power for this matter.

Background

4.      The Plan has been developed because, since 2002 Hawke’s Bay has made huge progress in providing cycling facilities such as the Rotary Pathways throughout the region, the Hawke’s Bay Trails, the iWay cycling network (both on and off road) in the Hastings District and other cycle paths in Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay districts.

5.      As a result, the number of local residents and visitors making use of cycle facilities has increased dramatically, tourism operators offering cycling experiences have opened and a number of successful cycling events and promotional campaigns have been run.  In addition, organisations such as Bikes in Schools are helping to increase cycling rates for children by providing bikes and bike tracks in schools.

6.      However, these initiatives were largely developed independently of each other, with each organisation working to its own plans and strategies for cycling. A coordinated approach was needed to capitalise on the successes so far, so that resources could be pooled, actions prioritised and the partners could collectively achieve the greatest gains for cycling in Hawke’s Bay.  A regional plan would also provide the strategic back up necessary for future funding applications to further improve the network.

7.      Planning for the development of a Regional Cycle Plan therefore commenced in 2012 and in May 2013, a regional forum entitled “Maximising the Return” was attended by over 90 stakeholders.  This forum confirmed the key vision for the Plan, which was:

“To normalise biking in Hawke’s Bay to such an extent that the region is nationally and internationally recognised as providing the most bike friendly experience in New Zealand.”

8.      The forum generated a great deal of enthusiasm and there was a strong mandate for the development of a regional cycle plan. The general feeling of the meeting was that the region collectively needed to just get on and make it happen.

9.      Following the forum, a working group and a governance group were set up to progress the plan. These groups were composed of members from all territorial local authorities, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and BikeOn.

10.    The draft Plan combines cycling initiatives from partner organisations and identifies a number of areas where successful initiatives by one partner can be extended to another area. One major example of this is the proposed extension of the iWay concept to Napier, with Napier City Council agreeing to include $6 million of investment in cycling in its long term plan over the next six years. Hastings meanwhile, has committed to further investment to complete its iWay network and continue its successful promotional programmes.

11.    Taking a regional approach to planning for cycling investment has already benefitted Hawke’s Bay, with a regional application prepared and submitted for the Urban Cycling Fund (UCF) supported by the draft Regional Cycle Plan. This special allocation for additional cycling infrastructure was announced by the Government in September 2014. A successful application will provide up to 33% of the cost, with a further 33% to come from NZTA through its regular walking and cycling fund. This reduces local council contributions to 33%, enabling the programmes to be completed more quickly.

12.    Initial feedback on the regional application has been very positive, with both Napier and Hastings iWay proposals rated as “likely” to be supported by the UCF (from a scale of likely, potential or unlikely). However this is still a very preliminary response and could change before the final decisions are announced at the end of June. Nevertheless, this feedback is encouraging and an indication of the weight placed by NZTA on regional coordination and cooperation.

13.    The Plan is composed of three main action plans in the areas of:

13.1.       Network development - identifying  and planning to fill gaps in the cycle path network

13.2.       Tourism/marketing – promoting the use of the cycle network and facilities for recreation and tourism

13.3.       Travel behaviour change – encouraging cycling as a means of transport.

14.    The draft Plan is attached, and comment may be provided at the meeting or forwarded to transport@hbrc.govt.nz before 18 May.

Financial and Resource Implications

15.    The cost of coordinating development of the Plan and maintaining the Hawke’s Bay Trails is included in Long Term Plan budgets.

Decision Making Process

16.    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:

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

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

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

16.4.   The persons affected by this decision are ratepayers of the region.

16.5.   Options that have been considered include not seeking Council’s feedback.

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

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


 

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1.      Receives the draft Regional Cycle Plan.

2.      Undertakes to provide any comments on the draft Regional Cycle Plan to the Regional Cycling Governance Group by 18 May 2015.

3.      Decides to exercise its delegated powers to make a decision that will have the same effect as the local authority could itself have exercised or performed and that the decision deserves urgency and the decision is carried unanimously.

 

 

Anne  Redgrave

Transport Manager

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1

Draft Regional Cycle Plan

 

 

  


Draft Regional Cycle Plan

Attachment 1

 

































HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Infrastructure Insurance

 

Reason for Report

1.      On 30 January 2013 the Corporate and Strategic Committee of Council considered a detailed paper regarding insurance for HBRC‘s infrastructure assets. This paper is attached for background information.

2.      Since that time staff have worked with an insurance broker and consultants to better quantify the potential risk of an extreme event damaging HBRC infrastructure assets.

3.      This work is yet to be completed but preliminary results from that work have enabled staff to investigate commercial and/or mutual insurance options for mitigating the financial risk to Council of meeting the cost of repairs and reinstatement of its assets following a major disaster. Those discussions are ongoing but will need to be finalised as soon as possible to enable Council to secure insurance for the 2015-16 year.

4.      This paper outlines the work being undertaken and seeks Council agreement to delegate the finalisation of insurance arrangements for providing insurance to HBRC infrastructure from 30 June 2015 to the Chief Executive.

Discussion

Value of infrastructure assets for insurance purposes

5.      Since providing the report to Council in January 2013, staff have reviewed the value of infrastructure assets which HBRC is responsible for. The replacement value of those assets is now estimated to be $182m. The reasons for the significant difference between that reported in January 2013 ($140m) and the current value are:

5.1.      This estimate reflects the estimated cost of repair and reinstatement of assets for insurance purposes. The value is higher because if current assets are severely damaged it would be important that new assets are constructed that provide a similar level of protection to that provided by the existing assets as quickly as possible. The cost of achieving this for some assets is significantly greater than the value of the current asset.

5.2.      The most significant difference in estimated value between 2013 and today is for replacement of river edge protection. The new estimate is for a design similar to the sawfly remediation work which included strengthening the live tree edge protection with concrete groyne structures.

5.3.      The current estimate also reflects the estimated cost of replacing the flood detention dams to modern building code requirements. A significant discrepancy between the estimated value of these structures found as a result of the reinstatement work associated with the Makara Dam has been rectified.

6.      It should however be noted that the value of infrastructure assets ($200m) includes the value of pump stations and land. Pump stations are insured under Council’s policy covering buildings (material damages policy) and is therefore not included as part of the discussions on infrastructure, and land is uninsurable. The replacement cost of assets under the infrastructure asset insurance policy is $182m.

Estimated costs of asset damage

7.      Over the course of the 2014/15 financial year staff have worked with brokers for commercial insurance and consultants to better quantify the risks to HBRC infrastructure assets from a range of disaster events. This work has determined the following potential cost of reinstatement following a major disaster:

7.1.      A flood event exceeding a 600 year return period event (0.016% chance of occurrence in any one year) will result in repair and reinstatement costs of an estimated $37m.

7.2.      An earthquake event with a return period of between 1,000 and 2,000 years will result in repair and reinstatement costs of an estimated $55m.

8.      It should be noted that for a major disaster central government policy is that they will assist a community with up to 60% of the cost of repair, with the remaining 40% being met by the local community. HBRC therefore seeks to secure insurance for its infrastructure assets to cover 40% of the estimated cost of repair and/or reinstatement.

LAPP

9.      LAPP is a mutual Scheme set up for local authorities.  LAPP currently has 33 local authorities as members.  LAPP determines the size of its fund and what reinsurance it requires based on its risk across NZ.  In some regions there is more than one member and it therefore needs to take into account the potential loss of infrastructure of all of its members with the potential to be affected by a single event.  Eg in Hawke’s Bay both HBRC and HDC are members and a significant event affecting the Heretaunga Plains would result in damage to both Council’s infrastructure. 

10.    HBRC are currently insured against the costs of recovery from a significant disaster through the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP). LAPP is a mutual scheme established specifically for insurance of local government infrastructure assets in New Zealand. In the 2014-15 year HBRC contribution to LAPP is $364,000 + GST with a deductible of $2,027,000.

11.    The LAPP Trust deed requires that members are committed to remain a member of LAPP until the end of the financial year after which they notify LAPP of their intention to withdraw from the programme. That notice is however able to be withdrawn at any time up until the end of the year following notification. HBRC provided notification to LAPP of their intention to withdraw from the programme prior to 30 June 2014 and therefore have the option of remaining with the programme or withdrawing from it after 30 June 2015.

12.    LAPP is however currently preparing the structure of their fund for the 2015-16 financial year and has requested the HBRC provide confirmation of Council’s position as soon as possible.

13.    The LAPP contribution is relatively high because they are currently rebuilding their fund following the Christchurch earthquakes. This contribution can be expected to reduce over time. LAPP have indicated the possibility of a 20% reduction in the 2015-16 contribution compared to the 2014-15 year. Further reductions can be expected in future years provided that there are no significant disaster events.

14.    In the 2015-16 year LAPP expects to seek reinsurance cover to enable the Scheme to cover an event causing $125m of damage. Costs would then be met 40% LAPP ($50m) and 60% central government ($75m).

Aon

15.    Aon representatives have, over the course of the 2014-15 financial year, assisted staff in better quantifying the financial exposure of HBRC infrastructure assets to a major disaster. The preliminary outcome of that work is set out in section 7 of this report. Unfortunately a report setting out the work to reach these estimates has yet to be completed and is therefore not available to be considered in detail by Council.

16.    Preliminary outputs from this project have however been made available to Aon who expect to be able to provide detailed proposals to HBRC staff by mid-May for infrastructure asset insurance commencing 30 June 2015.

17.    An indicative proposal has however been provided.  This proposal is:

17.1.    Annual premium $150,000 + GST

17.2.    Deductible of $1,500,000

17.3.    Maximum sum insured 40% of $60m for 2 events up to the $60m during the period of insurance. 

17.4.    There is a possibility that the annual premium fixed for two years will also be an option.

18.    The Aon representative is travelling to London in mid-May to meet with reinsurers. Upon his return it is expected that the proposal can be formalised.

Staff delegation

19.    It is proposed that the Group Managers - Asset Management and Corporate Services continue to work with insurance providers and prepare for the Interim Chief Executive a final proposal for her consideration prior to any commitment being made.

Financial and Resource Implications

20.    Flood Control and Drainage Scheme budgets for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan have been prepared assuming an insurance premium of $200k per year will be distributed between them.

Decision Making Process

21.    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:

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

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

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

21.4.   No persons are directly affected by this decision.

21.5.   Options that have been considered are set out in the report.

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Infrastructure Insurance” report.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Delegates authority to the Interim Chief Executive to determine and commit to the most cost effective insurance deal for mitigating the financial exposure risk to Council of repairing and/or reinstating infrastructure assets following a significant natural disaster.

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

1

Infrastructure Asset Insurance paper 30 January 2013

 

 

  


Infrastructure Asset Insurance paper 30 January 2013

Attachment 1

 

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 30 January 2013

SUBJECT: Infrastructure Asset Insurance

 


Reason for Report

1.      HBRC owns and administers approximately $145m of assets on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay community, for the protection of parts of the region against frequent flooding, to enable landowners to maximise productivity from their land and reduce the potential for community disruption resulting from flooding.

2.      By their very nature these assets are at risk of damage in a major flood, and susceptible to damage from other natural hazard events. This document sets out how HBRC will mitigate the financial risk of disaster damage to infrastructure assets that it owns and administers on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay community.

3.      Following a major disaster it is expected that there will be some assistance from central government, however the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2006 states that:

3.1.      initial and primary responsibility for recovery rests with the local community

3.2.      risk management and its associated costs should be carried by the local authorities that benefit and are best able to manage or mitigate the risk

3.3.      local authorities have a responsibility to the extent possible to insure against and attempt to minimise or mitigate risk in advance of any event.

4.      Central government funding is dependent on HBRC being able to demonstrate these requirements have been met.

5.      The purpose of this report reviews how HBRC mitigates the financial risk of damage to its infrastructure assets, and recommends that HBRC retain membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) for its ongoing mitigation of financial risk.

Current situation

6.      HBRC currently mitigates its financial risk through self insurance, commercial insurance, and through the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP). This is outlined in a report “Disaster Damage Risk Management Review” August 2001. This was further reviewed in 2006/07 and is documented in a series of Council briefing papers.

7.      Current insurance markets are challenging and are expected to remain so for the next 3 to 5 years. The primary driver has been the Christchurch earthquake events of September 2010, December 2010, February 2011 and June 2011 which resulted in major change in how New Zealand is viewed by the global insurance markets. In 2011 Australia and NZ contributed just 2% to the global reinsurance fund but were responsible for 20% of the reinsurance payout. The global insurance industry has also been impacted by floods in Thailand, earthquakes in Haiti and Chile and tsunami in Japan and Chile.

8.      Prior to the beginning of the 2011/12 financial year the annual commercial insurance premium and annual LAPP contribution providing cover for HBRC infrastructure assets totalled approximately $130,000 annually. This increased to $420,000 in the 2011/12 financial year. As a result of a change to the LAPP contribution, this has reduced to approximately $340,000 in the current financial year. There has however been an increase in the deductible that will apply to each claim.


HBRC Infrastructure Assets

9.      HBRC owns or administers on behalf of the regional ratepayers infrastructure with a replacement value of $146,200,000.

10.    These assets include:

10.1.   245 kilometres of stopbank

10.2.   540 kilometres of drains

10.3.   1637 groynes constructed from concrete units, wire rope and railway iron, or rock

10.4.   11 flood detention dams

10.5.   21 pumping stations.

11.    These assets are administered under 22 separate flood control and drainage schemes which provide protection against frequent flooding and drainage outlets to some of the most productive land in the Hawke’s Bay Region, as well as to the urban centres of Napier, Hastings, Waipukurau and Waipawa, and other settlements throughout the region.

12.    The Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers is the largest of the Schemes with assets with a replacement value of $58,000,000, an annual maintenance budget of approx $1,450,000, and an annual capital budget of approximately $1,170,000, ($670,000 being capital loan repayments).

13.    A major flooding event in any part of the region, and particularly the Heretaunga Plains could cause widespread devastation, economic losses and significant community disruption. The economic impact losses of 3 possible stopbank breach scenarios have been modelled. The direct industry production losses for these scenarios were:

13.1.   Roys Hill  $468m

13.2.   Taradale  $356m

13.3.   Moteo  $24m.

14.    Regional impact modelling of these figures estimates total Hawke’s Bay-wide GDP/Value added economic impact losses, including flow-on multiplier impacts of $526m, $317m and $32m respectively. (Source: Upgrading of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Economic Perspective – October 2010 – Economic Solutions Ltd.)

15.    Scheme assets are in many cases high risk sacrificial assets (e.g. live tree edge protection, and groynes constructed of wire rope and rail and concrete units) and are exposed to damage in any significant flood event. While the Schemes are all designed to contain floods up to their design capacity, the assets may suffer damage in flood events. In fact they are designed with the expectation that they will incur some damage.

16.    However there is a much greater risk of damage occurring to scheme assets in events that exceed their design capacity. Events which exceed the design capacity of any scheme, and particularly the larger schemes, i.e. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme and the Upper Tukituki Scheme, are likely to result in extensive community disruption and have a significant impact on the region’s economy.

17.    The Asset Management Plans set out the “Level of Service” provided by the schemes to the regional or local community. The Level of Service defines the standards to which the schemes are designed and maintained and amongst other things sets out the level of protection that is provided to the community. Following a disaster the same level of service would be expected to be reinstated.


Natural Hazard Risks

18.    The Hawke’s Bay Region is at risk from a range of natural hazard events which have the potential to damage HBRC’s infrastructure assets and severely impact on the regional community and economy.

19.    Figure 1 provides a comparison of risk between a range of natural hazard events to which the region is exposed.

20.    Significant flood, earthquake and tsunami events all have estimated return periods of less than 1 in 1000 years. While the likelihood of a major event occurring that results in significant damage to the Upper Tukituki or Heretaunga Plains Scheme during the next 50 years is low, the consequences of such an event occurring would be significant.

Risk = likelihood of occurrence x consequence

21.    Therefore the risk to the region of such an event may be high.  Table 31 sets out the risk to Hawke’s Bay of natural hazard risks.

22.    In considering the mitigation of risks to HBRC owned and administered infrastructure it is important to put this risk into the context of how the region will be impacted by such an event, and how this would impact on HBRC’s ability to repair or reinstate infrastructure that is damaged, and to fund that work.

23.    Table 1 sets out the types of damage that could occur to HBRC owned infrastructure assets as a result of significant natural hazard event.

Table 1

Disaster type

Type of possible damage

Earthquake

·    Slumping of stopbanks and drain sides

·    Liquefaction resulting in siltation of waterways

·    Ground movement impacting on drain grades

·    Ground movement reducing capacity of river flood channels

·    Structural damage to pump stations and other structures

Flood

·    Damage to edge protection (live trees and groyne structures)

·    Lateral scour of river resulting in loss of berm land, edge protection works and possibly stopbanks.

·    Extensive siltation and sediment deposition impacting on flood capacity

·    Damage to environmental planting and other works

·    Stopbank failure with extensive scour in vicinity of failure

·    Siltation of drainage channels, culverts and pump inlets

·    Damage to pathways

·    Debris deposits throughout the Scheme areas

Tsunami

·    Damage to stopbanks and river protection works in lower sections of rivers

·    Damage to East Clive sea exclusion bank, coastal groynes, and drainage channels and pump stations close to coast

·    Debris deposits in waterways

Volcanic ash fallout

·    Build up of sediment in drainage channels

·    Abrasion of pumps

24.    In addition to damage to HBRC owned infrastructure assets and their associated Schemes, there will be an expectation from the Hawke’s Bay public that HBRC will respond to issues associated with waterways throughout Hawke’s Bay.

Role of Central Government

25.    Following a significant disaster central government can be expected to provide financial assistance to enable the community to recover, provided HBRC has appropriate risk mitigation provisions in place. The principles for central government financial support are set out in the Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. These apply whether or not a State of Civil Emergency is declared. The principles relevant to infrastructure assets managed by HBRC are:

25.1.   The purpose of emergency recovery is to restore the affected community to a position in which normal social and economic activity may be resumed as quickly as possible. To achieve this, it is essential to have proper planning for risk management. The government considers local risks to be a local responsibility. Local authorities are primarily responsible for dealing with the impact of an emergency in their geographical and functional areas of responsibility. Government assistance is contingent upon that expectation.

25.2.   The aim of any government assistance is to provide the minimum level of assistance required to restore to the community the capacity for self-help and to provide solutions that are the most appropriate long-term solutions. This does not imply an obligation to restore a community to a better state than existed before the emergency, and nor is there an obligation to restore to previous levels if those are not sustainable in the longer term. Upgrading of facilities to a level greater than existed previously may be considered as special policy in cases where such upgrading would decrease the likelihood of a recurrence of the civil defence emergency. Wherever possible, government assistance will be provided in accordance with existing departmental policies.

25.3.   Specific principles for recovery assistance are:

25.3.1.       government has a role in the recovery process after a significant civil defence emergency; and

25.3.2.       any government response programme should be designed to restore the community capacity for self-help and be consistent with any government policies regarding mitigation and alleviation measures; and

25.3.3.       initial and primary responsibility for recovery rests with the local community; and

25.3.4.       risk management and its associated costs should be carried by the individuals, businesses, and local authorities that benefit and are best able to manage or mitigate the risk; and

25.3.5.       individuals, businesses, and local authorities have a responsibility to the extent possible to insure against and attempt to minimise or mitigate risk, in advance of any event; and

25.3.6.       government policies should encourage government organisations, local authorities, communities, businesses, and individuals in proper management practices such as

i.     analysing local hazards and understanding risk exposure; and

ii.     preventing the possibility of emergencies occurring, or reducing their likelihood or impact; and

iii.    adjusting infrastructures and practices to reduce vulnerability, to mitigate the consequences, and to limit potential damage; and

26.    The Guide states that the following may be eligible for government assistance.

26.1.   Repair or recovery of essential infrastructure assets. These include water, stormwater, electrical, sewerage and gas facilities and other structures, such as retaining walls and tunnels upon which essential services depend. These assets must be local authority assets included on the local authority asset schedule, and which are not the property of trading utilities.

26.2.   Repair or recovery of river management systems (including drainage schemes which are part of integrated river systems) where there is major community disruption or continuing risk to life.

26.3.   Repair or recovery of other community assets where damaged as a consequence of the failure of flood protection schemes.

27.    Government policy is to reimburse 60 percent of essential infrastructure recovery repair costs, above a threshold of 0.002% of net capital value in the case of regional councils.

28.    The capital value of the region as at 30 June 2012 is $30,069,385,700. This means that central government will meet 60% of the cost above a threshold of $601,380 of restoring the community to a level where it has the capacity for self help, provided it is satisfied that HBRC has in place appropriate risk management provisions.

29.    HBRC can plan on central government assistance for a disaster that impacts a large part of the region and particularly if the impact is focused on the Heretaunga Plains including the urban areas of Napier or Hastings. HBRC can also plan on no central government assistance if an event significantly impacts a relatively small part of the region, particularly a rural area; or has a relatively low level of impact across a significant part of the region. However, defining the threshold of when central government assistance will or won’t be available is not possible.

30.    Through a series of scenarios discussed under the next section, an assessment has been made of HBRC financial exposure to a range of possible events.

Maximum probable loss and maximum financial exposure

31.    The total replacement value of infrastructure owned or administered by HBRC is $146,200,000. HBRC annually reviews and updates the value of its infrastructure assets for audit and insurance purposes. This value is estimated on the basis that replacement of the assets would occur through an ordered programme of replacement. It provides for the replacement of assets in their current form and to the design standard to which they were constructed.

32.    Because these assets are spread across the region any disaster event is unlikely to result in their total loss. However insurance industry experience from events that have impacted on other regions over the past decade is that estimated replacement values of assets requiring repair or replacement have been found to underestimate the actual cost of remedial works by a factor of 2 to 3. There are a number of reasons for this:

32.1.   Design codes and construction detailing has changed since the assets were constructed.  New codes and detailing add to the cost.

32.2.   Construction is often more difficult as a result of other damage, loss of land, difficulty with access etc.

32.3.   The construction industry can often be busy following a disaster with high demand for earthmoving machinery.  This results in a less competitive market and therefore higher costs.

32.4.   In house resources are above capacity and there is a need to commission consultants to undertake design work, prepare tender and contract documentation and supervise works.

32.5.   There is insufficient time and resource to properly scope initial response and repair work before it commences, and therefore there is a substantial amount of work undertaken on the basis of hourly plant hire or consultancy rates.

32.6.   Areas that are damaged in an event are more susceptible to further damage in subsequent events. In some instances temporary repairs will be made and there will be some delay before permanent repairs are completed, resulting in additional cost.

32.7.   The situation has changed since the assets were constructed and technology used to assess options for providing a level of service that the asset was designed for has changed, resulting in an alternative design or approach being the most cost effective option.

33.    The indicative estimates of probable loss, based on the expected impact of major events as assessed by senior HBRC operations and engineering staff, and utilising information provided by LAPP based on experience from other disaster events, are set out in table 2 below. If HBRC decides to remain with LAPP, then these estimates will need to be reviewed in accordance with LAPP “Flood Risk Assessment for Flood Control Schemes”.


Table 2

Return period flood

20 year average recurrence interval (ARI)

50 year ARI

100 year ARI

500 year ARI

1,000 year ARI

Estimated cost*

$785,000

$3,800,000

$7,200,000

$18,750,000

$41,550,000

* This estimated cost includes replacement of current assets at their indicative optimised replacement value (ref paragraph 37), the HBRC cost of responding to the disaster, and an allowance for unforeseen additional costs.

34.    Repair costs are assumed to be up to 2.0 times replacement values. It should be noted that a more detailed assessment of potential loss will be required by LAPP if HBRC decides to retain LAPP as its infrastructure asset insurer. These estimates will then be used to review the HBRC insurance deductible and determine the change in risks associated with optimised replacement of assets over time.

35.    A severe flood event that exceeds the capacity of the Heretaunga Plains stopbanks is considered to be the event that is likely to result in the biggest cost of repairs.

36.    In 2005, HBRC responded to the devastation of significant areas of willow edge protection following its destruction by willow sawfly. At that time it was decided that the replacement of damaged edge protection to reinstate the level of service provided by the scheme should be achieved much more quickly than would be possible by planting new live tree edge protection. This was achieved using groynes constructed and wire rope and rail and concrete units with a range of tree species interplanted among these structures. The design was chosen as the most cost effective approach after a range of possible designs were tested through a physical model which would enable the level of service provided prior to the damage occurring to be returned in the shortest possible time.

37.    Should extensive damage occur to live tree edge protection again, it will be reinstated using a similar approach to the work completed under the sawfly project. This is called the optimised replacement approach. The optimised replacement cost of critical reaches of edge protection on the Heretaunga Plains and Upper Tukituki Rivers increases the replacement value by $37m. Optimised replacement costs are not covered by the HBRC commercial insurance policy however LAPP has agreed to provide cover on the basis of optimised replacement costs. This is further discussed under the LAPP option.

38.    HBRC’s financial exposure will depend on central government meeting 60% of the repair costs in accordance with the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, and the amount of financial risk that HBRC wishes to transfer through insurance. Options for this are considered in the next section.

39.    While HBRC can choose to transfer some financial risk through insurance, it must recognise that insurance may not cover all costs.

40.    The estimates of financial exposure (ref paragraph 73) are based on a single event. Major floods can be the result in a change in weather patterns resulting in a series of events that either cause damage or aggravate damage that has already occurred in previous events. By way of example the Canterbury earthquake of November 2010 was followed by a series of aftershocks, including the February 2011 event that devastated Christchurch.

41.    It is therefore prudent, in considering the level of financial exposure that HBRC is carrying, to be prepared for a series of damaging events.

Options for Risk Financing

42.    There are four broad options for disaster risk financing. These are listed and discussed below.

42.1.   Membership of a mutual fund eg LAPP

42.2.   Commercial insurance

42.3.   HBRC reserves

42.4.   Post loss borrowing.

Membership of a Mutual Fund, e.g. LAPP

43.    The Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) is the only established mutual fund available to HBRC. LAPP was established in 1993 as a mutual fund owned by Local Government. Membership of LAPP is recognised by central government as an effective way of complying with the National CDEM Plan requirements.

44.    LAPP has the following features that allow it to build its reserves in a cost effective manner for the benefit of its members.

44.1.   Its sole purpose is to pay local government claims following a natural disaster

44.2.   It is a discretionary Trust governed by a Board of Trustees, all of whom are from local government

44.3.   Given its purpose to assist local government by paying claims, it is a charitable trust and as a consequence its investment income is tax free

44.4.   Being a not for profit organisation all surpluses are reinvested for the benefit of members

44.5.   Fund administration costs, including risk management services to members, have been less than 5% of contributions paid to the fund.

45.    The fund covers 40% of the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets for each member organisation above a deductible which is the highest of its central government deductible, its estimated 20 year flood risk estimate, and 50% of its 100 year earthquake risk. For HBRC the highest is the 20 year flood risk estimate which is $1,128,000. This deductible has been set for the 2012/13 year. Regional council members of LAPP are discussing the quantum of this deductible with LAPP. The deductible may be recalculated for 2013/14 and future years.

46.    Payment of a claim by LAPP is not dependent on central government agreeing to meet its 60% share.

47.    LAPP currently has 58 local authority members including 5 regional authorities. It covers a total of $18.6b in infrastructure assets. HBRC is currently a member of LAPP but has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the scheme. Under the LAPP trust deed this means that HBRC membership of LAPP shall terminate at the end of the funding year following notice, i.e. 30 June 2013. That notice may however be withdrawn at any time prior to this date.

48.    LAPP has advised that 19 other members have also given notice of their intention to withdraw from the Scheme on 30 June 2013 and 1 new member has joined the Scheme. LAPP representatives do not believe that the Scheme would be any less viable if all of the member organisations that have given notice do withdraw from the Scheme. While a reduced membership may result in reduced income to LAPP, it will also result in reduced risk. LAPP believes that many of the organisations that have given notice will rescind those notices.

49.    LAPP has requested HBRC to advise whether or not it intends to rescind their notice by 30 April 2013 to enable LAPP to secure the best terms for members who are known to be continuing with that membership in 2013/14.

50.    Both Waimakariri District and Christchurch City are LAPP members. Following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, LAPP advised its members that it had no further cover until the end of that financial year. LAPP advised that it will pay its 40% share for the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch earthquake events up to the limits of its available funds ($272.5m in a single policy period with one reinstatement – i.e. two large events in one policy period).

51.    These two events occurred in one policy period (financial year) and resulted in extensive damage to the infrastructure of the largest LAPP member. The events were unprecedented and had return periods of between 2,500 and 10,000 years. The extent of liquefaction experienced had not been previously observed in an urban area. On 1 July 2010, LAPP had reserves of $40m and reinsurance cover for 40% of the cost of a claim up to $272.5m with one automatic reinstatement during the policy year. Prior to those events this was considered by LAPP and their reinsurers to contain generous contingency margins for any likely claim. The Christchurch experience has shown that these limits were in fact inadequate.

52.    Prior to these events LAPP was providing its members with a 50% discount on premiums. In the 2011/12 year LAPP premiums doubled and all members were required to pay premiums without any discount. This means that the annual contribution for 2011/12 was 4 times higher than the 2010/11 financial year. HBRC contribution was approximately $80,000 in the 2010/11 year and $320,000 in the 2011/12 year.

53.    Following consultation with its members, LAPP trustees chose to use for the 2012/13 year a model to calculate annual contributions which is a mixture of reinsurance and mutual self-insurance. This option will apply as LAPP rebuilds its reserves. Premiums have been substantially reduced (HBRC contribution is $195,000 for the 2012/13 year). All members have a collective exposure equal to 5 times their annual contribution per event (for any event that impacts on one or more of LAPP member organisations) with an agreed maximum of 10 times their annual contribution per year.

54.    LAPP provides cover for the majority of constructed assets that make up HBRC’s flood control and drainage schemes, including the following subject to specific nomination by the member.

54.1.   Live tree edge protection (where this is part of a stopbanked scheme)

54.2.   Reinstatement of land within 8m of the stopbank toe

54.3.   Silt clean-up costs from drains and channels.

55.    In addition, for the same event LAPP covers 40% of the costs for temporary emergency repairs and response activities focused on:

55.1.   Taking the necessary precautions or preventive actions (whether by evacuation of people, by construction, by demolition, or by any other means) to reduce the immediate danger to human life, where those actions were begun during the response period

55.2.   Taking precautions or preventive actions with a view to reducing the impact of the event, where those actions were begun in the immediate period leading up to the event.

56.    Staff have held discussions with representatives of LAPP, who have advised that LAPP will provide cover for optimised replacement value of assets, provided that they are declared by HBRC and appropriate contributions paid.

57.    Staff will explore this possibility further should Council agree to remain a member of LAPP.

Commercial Insurance

58.    HBRC currently has commercial insurance covering 60% of the cost of reinstatement of its assets up to a maximum of $23.5m, and with a deductable amount of $3.5m. This means that if HBRC assets nominated for cover were damaged such that their replacement value equalled or exceeded $23.5m, Council would receive an insurance payment of $12.0m. (Calculated @ ($23.5m-$3.5m) x 60% = $12.0m.)

59.    The availability and cost of insurance cover, especially for high risk assets such as flood control schemes, depends on the insurance cycle. Insurance is subject to a cycle of high and low costs depending on, but not limited to, the level of natural disaster claims worldwide particularly in the developed and therefore more highly insured countries.

60.    In the early 1990s commercial insurance was not available for “generally uninsurable” assets. This included most infrastructure assets. Since that time limited cover from insurance companies has become available. In “soft” conditions, commercial insurance premiums are low and insurers are more willing to cover a wide range of risks. However, following the Canterbury earthquakes, there has been a reassessment of the risks in New Zealand and the market has “hardened” significantly. This has resulted insurance and reinsurance becoming less easy to obtain and premiums and deductibles being higher.

61.    Commercial insurance specifically excludes growing crops. This means that live tree edge protection which is an important part of major flood control and drainage schemes is not insured. Live tree edge protection is vulnerable to damage in any flood event and forms a major part of HBRC’s assets.

62.    Examples of other repair or recovery costs that are uninsurable by commercial insurers are:

62.1.   Event response costs

62.2.   The need to reinstate a river into its old course

62.3.   Increased length of stopbank as a result of a change in the course of a river, or the event rendering some of the ground unsuitable for the founding of a stopbank

62.4.   The need to return a river channel to its previous capacity after agradation or changes in river profile has resulted in a reduced capacity

62.5.   Additional costs resulting from subsequent flood events causing ongoing damage to river works

62.6.   The cost of regrading drainage channels or building up stopbanks after land movement as a result of an earthquake

62.7.   The cost of undertaking extensive reviews of scheme areas and assets to identify and revise flood risk areas, and the cost of any new assets needed to mitigate the risk of flooding in areas newly prone to flood risk

63.    HBRC currently holds commercial insurance to cover the possibility of central government not agreeing to meet 60% of the repair costs in accordance with the policy set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan. In recent years central government has shown a willingness to provide financial support following significant disaster events.

HBRC Reserves

64.    A number of councils are understood to be using the strength of their own balance sheet to cover their potential risk. HBRC mitigates a portion of its own risk through its requirement that each flood control and drainage scheme hold its own disaster reserve. HBRC also holds a regional disaster reserve which is designed to meet the difference between the individual Scheme disaster reserve and the deductible value of commercial insurance. These reserves allow HBRC to obtain commercial insurance with a relatively high deductible which substantially reduces commercial premiums.

65.    However industry advisors suggest that many of those councils which have chosen to cover their risk through the strength of their balance sheet have less than $5m set held in reserves for disaster recovery with larger councils holding $10m. They advise that in their experience reserve requirements are often set at significantly less than required, and quote Christchurch City as having loss estimates prior to the February earthquake of between 10 and 20% of the actual expected repair cost.

66.    It is very difficult to estimate the level of reserves that may be required as large natural disasters are relatively infrequent and it is difficult to accurately predict their impact. Utilising the organisation’s balance sheet to meet the full cost of a disaster can result in exposure of the organisation to significant financial risk. This approach is also unlikely to meet the criteria set for central government under the Guide to the National CDEM Plan as an adequate means of providing for the cost of restoration of infrastructure assets. It could therefore result in central government declining to meet 60% of the cost.

67.    The use of HBRC reserves for meeting the cost of natural hazard events that occur on average more frequently than once every 20 to 25 years is considered appropriate, however staff recommend that HBRC have alternative means of disaster risk financing for larger less frequent events.

Post Loss Borrowing

68.    Some local authorities that have been impacted by a natural disaster have had to use debt financing to fund the reinstatement of their assets, especially if they have not made adequate provision to cover these costs in advance.

69.    A proposal to finance disaster repairs through post loss borrowing may not be recognised by central government under the Guide to the National CDEM Plan as an adequate means of providing for the cost of restoration of infrastructure assets following a natural disaster, and therefore result in central government declining to meet 60% of the cost in accordance with the provisions of the Plan.

70.    There is uncertainty on the availability and cost of debt financing following a natural disaster, especially if economic conditions are weak. The ability and willingness of the community to pay for increased debt through higher rate levies will determine how much can be borrowed and the timeframes.

71.    There may however be a need for some post loss financing should a decision be made to reinstate assets to a higher design standard and/or with superior materials than the damaged assets, or if asset repair costs have been underestimated.

Consideration of Options

72.    Table 3 is a summary of the pros and cons of each of these options.

Table 3

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1. Mutual fund (LAPP)

·    Provides cover for wide range of infrastructure assets, including other costs that are likely to arise in any response to a natural disaster.

·    Has relatively low deductible.

·    Will cover costs based on optimised replacement value.

·    Aligns with central government policy expectations

·    Governed by local government representatives specifically to meet local government costs following a disaster.

·    Decisions on fund management are made by LAPP trustees and not Councillors.

·    There is a contingent liability which may require HBRC to contribute to the cost of a disaster in a district or region outside HB.

·    Annual contribution can vary depending on need to build fund and reinsurance costs.

·    Can become depleted by significant event elsewhere in NZ, and may have difficulty in sourcing reinsurance following multiple claims.

2. Commercial Insurance

·    Relatively low premiums for high level of potential claim.

·    Able to secure insurance at relatively short notice.

·    High deductible

·    Will only cover costs for specified assets – there is likely to be significant costs not covered by commercial insurance.

·    Does not provide cover for live tree edge protection.

·    Premiums can fluctuate depending pressure on reinsurance markets.

3. HBRC reserves

·    No ongoing premiums or contributions, except as structured within HBRC.

·    Unlimited flexibility in how disaster funding is paid.

·    Difficult to financially justify holding significant reserves in case of a major disaster.  Money may be more effectively used for other HBRC activities.

·    Significant risk of exceeding reserve amount, or having inadequate cover for single or series of disasters.

·    A disaster will have large financial impact on HBRC reserves at a time when rating income will be most under pressure, due to potential economic impact of event on region.

·    Unlikely to meet expectations for self help required as prerequisite for central government assistance.

4. Post Loss Borrowing

·    No ongoing premiums or contributions, except as necessary to secure loan facility.

·    Borrowing for each flood control and drainage scheme will place significant ongoing financial burden on scheme ratepayers who will be under financial stress.

·    Unlikely to meet expectations for self help required as prerequisite for central government assistance.

 

HBRC Financial Exposure

73.    HBRC financial exposure to an event based on the estimated level of damage is set out in table 4.

Table 4

Return period flood

20 yr ARI

50 yr ARI

100 yr ARI

500 yr ARI

1,000 yr ARI

Estimated cost

$785,000

$3,800,000

$7,200,000

$18,750,000

$41,550,000

Costs met from

 

 

 

 

 

Option 1

 

 

 

 

 

Central government

$81,000

$1,860,000

$3,800,000

$9,690,000

$21,570,000

LAPP

0

$968,000

$2,270,000

$6,190,000

$14,110,000

HBRC

$704,000

$972,000

$1,130,000

$2,870,000

$5,870,000

Option 2

 

 

 

 

 

Central government

$81,000

$1,860,000

$3,800,000

$9,690,000

$21,570,000

Commercial insurance

0

0

0

$1,120,000

$5,090,000

HBRC

$704,000

$1,940,000

$3,400,000

$7,940,000

$14,890,000

Option 3

 

 

 

 

 

Central government*

$81,000

$1,860,000

$3,800,000

$9,690,000

$21,570,000

HBRC

$704,000

$1,940,000

$3,400,000

$9,060,000

$19,980,000

Option 4

 

 

 

 

 

Central government*

$81,000

$1,860,000

$3,800,000

$9,690,000

$21,570,000

HBRC

$704,000

$1,940,000

$3,400,000

$9,060,000

$19,980,000

*As stated above these options may not meet the expectations of central government in terms of the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. This additional degree of uncertainty should be noted when considering these options.


Funding of HBRC share

74.    HBRC’s current policy (February 2007) is for the HBRC share of the cost of a disaster to be provided for in a combination of ways, including:

74.1.   Disaster Reserve Investment Funds accumulated by the Regional Community

74.2.   Disaster Damage Investment Funds accumulated by each individual Council managed Flood Control and Drainage Scheme

74.3.   A proportion of annual maintenance budgets of various Flood and Drainage Schemes able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

75.    These sources of funds are to be referred to as Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves.

Disaster Damage Reserves

76.    These reserves will be available to deal with any situation resulting in damage to infrastructure assets regardless of the level of financial loss but within specified criteria.

77.    The disaster reserves for each scheme shall be built up to a level in excess of the minimum amount required to meet the costs of a single disaster. The disaster reserve for each scheme may be capped at a target level of the greater of 1.5 times the level required to meet the scheme excess of one disaster event, less 20% of each scheme’s current years maintenance budget; or the level required to meet the scheme excess for one disaster event. Furthermore, all schemes with infrastructure assets will have a disaster reserve of at least $5,000.

78.    Table 5 sets out the required Scheme excess and target levels. If any scheme account ends with a significant surplus in any one year and the disaster reserve target level has not been achieved, consideration will be given whether or not to increase the level of contribution made to the scheme disaster fund.

Table 5

Scheme

Excess

(2006 asset values)

Maintenance expenditure able to be redirected

Target level for disaster reserve

Balance at 30 June 2006

 

Heretaunga Plains Rivers

 

Heretaunga Plains Drains

Napier Meeanee

Brookfields Awatoto

Pakowhai

Muddy Creek

Haumoana

Karamu

Twyford Raupare

Tutaekuri Waimate

Puninga

 

Upper Tukituki

 

Makara

Paeroa

Poukawa

Esk

Whirinaki

Ohuia Whakaki

Te Awanga

Kopuawhara

 

 

$654,004

 

 

$89,468

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$18,980

$189,943

$39,485

$41,115

$6,953

 

$408,690

 

$30,898

$20,735

$12,452

$5,000

$9,343

$11,332

$7,466

$5,000

 

$100,000

 

 

$30,000

$7,500

$11,500

$17,000

$9,000

$59,500

$16,500

$20,000

$8,000

 

$67,500

 

$2,500

$3,100

$3,100

$2,000

$1,000

$2,800

$1,000

$1,000

 

 

$881,066

 

 

$104,202

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$19,470

$225,415

$42,727

$41,672

$6,953

 

$545,535

 

$43,847

$28,002

$15,578

$5,500

$13,014

$14,198

$10,199

$6,500

 

 

$708,191

 

 

$55,482

$6,009

$13,523

$12,091

$12,091

$115,754

$24,816

$21,078

$4,192

 

$266,696

 

$25,547

$23,912

$10,168

$11,834

$9,064

$10,126

$4,353

$100

 

79.    Note these disaster reserve caps are now adjusted annually to take into account inflation.

80.    The Regional Disaster reserve will:

80.1.   Meet any extraordinary costs of managing the response and recovery to a disaster event

80.2.   Meet 60% of any unfunded portion of asset reinstatement cost following a disaster event.

81.    The Regional Disaster Reserve will generally be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range $2.75M to $3.75M.

82.    If investments exceed $3.75M in value then some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account. The Chief Executive of Council has discretion to decide what investments should be sold, and the timing of any sale, and is required to report any sales to Council.

Criteria for the Build-up, Use and Maintenance of Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves

83.    Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.

84.    Reserves will be used to meet the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets (to an equivalent standard to that in place before the damage was incurred).

85.    The initial cost of restoring the Council’s infrastructure assets (to be referred to as Scheme Excesses) will be met by each relevant Flood Control and Drainage Scheme to a maximum level per Scheme of 2.5% of the replacement value of edge protection, plus 2% of the replacement value of stopbanks and detention dams plus, 1.5% of the replacement value of all drainage assets of each Scheme. This obligation will be met by Disaster Damage Investment Funds and annual maintenance budgets able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

86.    All efforts will be made to maximise any disaster recovery contributions from Central Government or any other sources.

87.    Income earned on Reserve investment funds may be used to meet the cost of commercial insurance cover taken on Council “generally uninsurable” infrastructure assets.

88.    Income from all Disaster Reserve and Disaster Damage investments will be credited to the respective Reserves until such time as the Reserves build up their required level of funding. At such time as each Reserve meets the target level, income will be available to help meet the funding requirements of Council or Flood and Drainage Scheme annual operational expenditure.

89.    Once Reserves have met their target level of funding and are subsequently reduced below the scheme excess the Reserve must be reinstated to the target level for each disaster reserve within 10 years.

90.    Based on this policy the HBRC contribution to the cost of a disaster under Option 1 LAPP could be met as set out in table 6. Note that these estimates assume significant damage to the Heretaunga Plains Scheme and Upper Tukituki Scheme, but could vary considerably depending on the location of the area most impacted by the event and the type of damage incurred. They should therefore be considered indicative only.


Table 6

Return period flood

20 yr ARI

50 yr ARI

100 yr ARI

500 yr ARI

1,000 yr ARI

Estimated cost

$785,000

$3,800,000

$7,200,000

$18,750,000

$41,550,000

Option 1

 

 

 

 

 

HBRC exposure

$704,000

$972,000

$1,130,000

$2,870,000

$5,870,000

Costs met from

 

 

 

 

 

CDEM operational budget

$12,000

$25,000

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

Other operational budgets

$40,000

$60,000

$70,000

$100,000

$200,000

Scheme operational budget

$150,000

$167,000

$200,000

$200,000

$250,000

Scheme disaster reserve

$502,000

$620,000

$660,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Regional disaster reserve

0

$100,000

$150,000

$1,470,000

$3,500,000

Other HBRC reserves or reduction in work programmes

 

 

 

 

$570,000

Total

$704,000

$972,000

$1,130,000

$2,870,000

$5,870,000

Conclusions

91.    Insurance cover for HBRC infrastructure assets has been assessed by staff. Their conclusion is that:

91.1.   LAPP provides a cost effective insurance cover for HBRC infrastructure assets

91.2.   Commercial insurance is no longer essential as there is now a stronger commitment from central government to meet a share of the disaster cost as set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.

92.    Staff therefore recommend that Council:

92.1.   Rescinds its notice of intention to withdraw from LAPP

92.2.   Notes within its accounts the contingent liability associated with being part of a mutual insurance scheme

92.3.   Continues to maintain a level of self insurance through Scheme disaster reserves and the Regional disaster reserve

92.4.   Does not renew its commercial insurance for infrastructure assets effective from the 2013/14 financial year

92.5.   Continues to work with LAPP to improve estimates of flood risk to HBRC infrastructure assets, and to develop optimised replacement valuations for all assets

92.6.   Reviews its self insurance arrangements to provide the most cost effective cover for all HBRC infrastructure assets.

Decision Making Process

93.    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:

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

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

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

93.4.   No persons are directly affected by this decision.

93.5.   Options that have been considered are as outlined in this paper.

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

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

 


 

Recommendations

The Corporate and Strategic 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.      Rescinds its notice of intention to withdraw from LAPP.

3.      Notes, within its accounts, the contingent liability associated with being part of a mutual insurance scheme.

4.      Continues to maintain a level of self insurance through Scheme disaster reserves and the Regional disaster reserve.

5.      Does not renew its commercial insurance for infrastructure assets effective from the 2013-14 financial year.

6.      Continues to work with LAPP to improve estimates of flood risk to HBRC infrastructure assets and therefore reduce the LAPP deductible, and to develop optimised replacement valuations for all assets.

7.      Reviews its self insurance arrangements to provide the most cost effective cover for all HBRC infrastructure assets.

 


 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

 

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Biosecurity Operational Plans 2015-16

 

Reason for Report

1.      HBRC is the management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan (RPPMP). Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the management agency for a pest management plan to review the operational plan for each Plan annually. Operational plans for the 2015-16 financial year have been prepared for both the RPMP and RPPMP and are appended to this paper for Committee reference and are available to other parties on request.

2.      Staff believe that the current operational plans have proven to be effective and therefore with the exception of wide scale predator control only minor changes from the 2014-15 plans are proposed.

3.      A brief presentation will be provided highlighting some of the key operational programmes.

4.      This agenda item seeks Council adoption of the 2015-16 operational plans.

Comment

Regional Pest Management Plan

5.      Key RPMP work programmes included in the 2015-16 operational plan include:

5.1.   The control of possums within urban areas. This programme is proving to be very successful with bellbird numbers doubling and Tui trebling within the initial control area for this programme (the Napier Hill) over which control was undertaken in 2008.

5.2.   The implementation of stage two of the Cape to City wide scale predator control has begun. There are some transformational opportunities for predator management within the region arising from the project.

5.3.   The transition of approximately 100,000 ha from the TBFree New Zealand possum control programme to the HBRC Possum Control Area programme.

6.      Attached are the plant and animal pest operational plans 2015/16.

Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan

7.      There has been no requirement for HBRC to undertake any activities under the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. No changes are proposed to this operational plan. The regional phytosanitary pest management operational plan is attached.

Decision Making Process

8.      Council is required to make every 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 the following:

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

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

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

8.4.      Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (sec 100B), Council is required to review its operational plans annually.

8.5.      The operational plans must be consistent with the pest management strategy they are prepared for, and therefore will only affect persons to an extent that has already been considered by Council through the process of developing the existing pest management strategy.

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Biosecurity Operational Plans 2015-16” report.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      In accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 adopts, after the inclusion of any amendments made as a result of the Committee’s consideration, the:

2.2.1.      Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

2.2.2.      Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

2.2.3.      Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2015-16.

 

 

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

1

Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

 

 

2

Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

 

 

3

Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2015-16

 

 

  


Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

 

 

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

 

operational plan

animal pests

 

JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.0......... Introduction. 1

2.0......... Background.. 1

3.0......... Measuring Performance. 1

4.0......... Animal Pest categories. 1

5.0......... Regional Control Animal Pests. 2

Possums. 2

Rabbits. 6

Map 1: Annual rabbit night count routes. 8

Map 2: Annual RCV sample sites. 9

Rooks. 10

Map 3: Aerial Rook Programme. 13

Map 4: Extinct Rookeries. 14

6.0......... Education. 15

7.0......... Site Specific Pests. 15

8.0......... QEII Covenanted Land.. 15

9.0......... Research Initiatives. 15

10.0....... Advice And Information. 16

11.0....... Argentine ants. 16

12.0....... Wide Scale predator Control – Cape to City. 16

13.0....... Regional pest management strategy review.. 17

 

 


Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

 

1.0       Introduction

This operational plan sets out how Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will implement the animal pest objectives for the control of animal pests as set out in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP).  This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

2.0       Background

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the management agency for the RPMP.  As the management agency, Council is required to prepare an annual 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 RPMP.  HBRC’s draft 2015/16 Annual Plan details the expected level of expenditure by Council in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMP.

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 RPMP 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 a summary 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 RPMP 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 established Possum Control Areas (PCAs) with the support and assistance of land occupiers. Within PCAs, Council arranged for initial possum control to 3% residual trap catch (rtc) using pest control contractors. Occupiers of land which has received such control are now 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 ha

·    AHB                  400,000 (approximately) ha

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

This area is made up of the Nuhaka, Mahanga and Papuni operations within which land occupiers have declined participating in the PCA programme. 

With this exception HBRC have achieved the possum control objective.

The Animal Health Board (now trading as TBfree NZ) have advised HBRC that they will be withdrawing control over 51,126 hectares of productive land in the 2015/16 year.  In addition there is 43,310 hectares deferred by TBFree in 2014-15 that will also transition to the PCA programme in the 15-16 financial year. HBRC have agreed with AHB that the establishment of bait stations over this area shall be undertaken by HBRC. Staff plan for this work to be undertaken over the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years. Biosecurity staff will ensure that these properties will have bait stations set up by Council for possum control maintenance. Staff will also visit each individual property within this area and ensure that occupiers are fully aware of the following:

·    The relevant content of the RPMP 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.

 

 

 

Initial Contact:

Land owners and 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 2015/16 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. Bellbirds have trebelled and Tui has quadrupled in number.


Completed areas are shown on Map 1

 

Areas proposed for control in the 2015/16 year are:

 

Proposed Semi Urban Pest Management Operational Areas 2015/16

 

Urban Pest Management Operational Areas

Hectares

Waipawa

450

Awatoto

995

Meeanee

1,429

Total Hectares

2,874

These are shown on Maps 2 and 3


Map 2

Map 3

There is approximately 6,000 ha of urban or semi urban areas in the broader Napier and Hastings urban area that are still to receive initial control. Control will be programmed at 300-1000 ha per annum.

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

 

First Round of Maintenance 2015/2016

 

Self-Help Possum Control Areas

Hectares

Coach Road

9,244.3

Glengarry

13,591.3

Mangatahi

8,744

Matahorua

1,262.7

Pakowhai North

9,586.4

Patunamu GS1

6,980.7

Patunamu GS2

10,393.6

Raupunga

8,000.4

Tuai

5,428.3

Tutira

4,756.3

Waihua River

17,738.1

Waikaremoana

5,603.5

Wairoa Buffer GS1

8,926

Wairoa Buffer GS2

15,134.8

Totals

125,390.4

The PCAs in the table 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.  Where lines over 5% are identified, staff visit the land occupier(s) and discuss what actions they should be taking to reduce possum numbers.

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 spotlight counts every 1 to 2 years 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 a 1 to 2 year basis and tests 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 receive 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 RPMP 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 as temporary spikes in the population can occur outside these times.  The RPMP states that HBRC will at its discretion meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control. 

 

Education

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide advice and education to land occupiers, including occupiers of small blocks, to encourage them to control rabbits by the most efficient and effective means. This work will comprise advising and educating individual land occupiers on ways of minimising the risk of rabbits impacting on their properties, participating in discussion groups, field days, preparing pamphlets and using media opportunities to convey relevant information.

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.  The HBRC contribution to any control work shall be funded from the rabbit reserve fund.

 

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: Rabbit night count routes.

 



Map 2: 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.

The rook clear line is defined by SH5.

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.  While rook numbers have been significantly reduced and eradication is possible in the longer term this will not be achieved 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 where low numbers of rooks are present.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aerial Rook Control in Action:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Map 3: Aerial Rook Programme

Note: It is estimated that there are approx 2.5 rooks for each active nest.


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 RPMP 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 PCA’s 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 be agreed between the occupier and HBRC.

9.0       Research Initiatives

There are a range of research initiatives under way as part of HBRC’s approved stage two for wide scale predator control that will continue into the 2015-16 financial year under this operational plan. These include chew card operational maximisation, minimum predator control area modelling, benefits from reducing toxoplasmosis, farmer WSPC value proposition / uptake and “green credentials” for farm products where farm management delivers environmental outcomes.

Wireless trap monitoring

This is a key transformational element of wide scale predator control research and operational implementation. Predator pest initial control and particularly the long term maintenance have considerable labour costs associated with them. Wireless trap monitoring is essentially having each trap linked to a wireless reporting system so when the trap is triggered the operator is notified on a smart phone or laptop with the physical location of the triggered trap shown on a map. Wireless trap monitoring has the potential to reduce the costs of predator pest control by 50-80% and is a critical link to transformational regional success large scale against predator pests. An initial roll out of wireless trap monitoring has been very successful in March and April 2015. Trials for wireless trap monitoring will be up scaled and further tested in the 2015-16 year.

Compare camera traps, predator detection dogs and predator tracking tunnels in terms of sensitivity and cost-effectiveness

Motions sensitive camera monitoring is key to the long term ability to manage vertebrate predator pests within the region. Cameras will provide the ability to measure pre and post control success and therefore the link to biodiversity and economic outcome delivery. Cameras will also allow survivor detection and predator hot spot surveillance.

Model effectiveness of predator control with varying levels of landholder participation

While the opportunity exists with a 3-5 year timeframe through the RPMP process to integrate other predator pests into the PCA programme with a compliance target, control of predators is currently voluntary. This research looks specifically at a range of scenarios where not all of an area has received control and based on the biological characteristics of predator pests what the outcome impacts of some farms not participating is.

Design detailed toxoplasmosis research programme designed with key stakeholders engaged, and necessary baseline data gathered.

Toxoplasmosis is a key link to economic outcomes that may be delivered through wide scale feral cat control. Within this region there are millions of dollars lost through toxoplasmosis causing abortions in pregnant sheep or through the costs associated with vaccination against toxoplasmosis. This research looks to gather baseline data to allow an understanding over the duration of the project whether large scale feral cat control reduces the incidence of toxoplasmosis within the landscape.

Baseline surveys on attitudes and barriers to participation completed

Community uptake and engagement are key deliverables for the Cape to City project. Both urban and rural surveys are proposed to better understand why people may be interested in participating in biodiversity activities, what values are associated with that, what the barriers to participation are ect.

Outcomes monitoring

A number of outcome based studies have been completed within the Cape to City sister project Poutiri Ao o Tane including the recovery of invertebrates/ skinks and lizards and a study on rabbit pasture browse. Statistically significant results to date show that lizards and invertebrates populations benefit from predator control. Additional monitoring particularly around threatened and endangered bird species, rabbits, invertebrates and lizards will be implemented in the Cape to City project.


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. Bird Count monitoring has shown that the urban possum control programme has been very successful with Tui quadrupling and Bell bird trebling in numbers on the Napier hill since control was implemented in 2008.

10.0    Advice And Information

Public inquires regarding the control of animal pests listed in the RPMP will be dealt with as noted in this Plan.  For inquires 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.  In addition to this public awareness of this pest is being built and best practice control and guidelines provided to occupiers who may want to undertake control.

12.0    Wide Scale predator Control - Cape to City

HBRC is currently involved in a multi agency ecological restoration initiative called Cape to City. The Cape to City project is a community based initiative with strong backing from several agencies including HBRC, DOC, Landcare Research, the Aotearoa Foundation and land users.

The project is ambitious and hopes to achieve positive biodiversity and social outcomes over 26,000 hectares encompassing both DOC reserves and private farmland. The vision of this project is to have “Native species thrive where we live, work and play.”

 

It will achieve this through success in two key areas:

 

1)   Showing the technical pathway to ultra low cost integrated possum, feral cat, mustelid and hedgehog control. Rats will also be controlled in the landscape as well where this will deliver to the outcomes sought.

2)   Engaging our communities and particularly our urban communities into the value of biodiversity at a much greater level they are currently engaged now.

13.0    Regional pest management Plan review

Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 Council must initiate a proposal for the review of the current operative RPMP 2013 before December 2018. It is clear now under section 71 that what is required under the National Policy Direction (NPD) is that for any RPMPs that are proposed after the NPD is enacted Council must consider whether an RPMP proposal is consistent with the NPD. Council is not required to initiate an RPMP proposal within a set time of the NPD being enacted.

.


Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

 

Appendix 1: Possum Control Area Self Help Agreement

 

Possum Control Area

Self Help Agreement

 

1)   The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will, in accordance with the Hawkes Bay Regional Plant Pest and Animal Pest Management Plan, carry out initial possum control operations to reduce possum levels to 3% residual trap catch on your property.

2)   I, the occupier will:

·    Maintain possum numbers at or below 5% residual trap catch in accordance with the rule in the Hawkes Bay Regional Plant Pest and Animal Pest Management Plan.

3)   The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will, in accordance with the Hawkes Bay Regional Pest Management Plan, provide an advisory service to occupiers to assist in maintaining possum numbers at or below 5% residual trap catch once initial control has been carried out.

4)   Please indicate preferred maintenance option

  Will use a contractor to carry out maintenance

  Will carry out own maintenance  (Must meet HSNO Act requirements)

 

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)


Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

 

Hawke’s Bay Regional

Pest Management Plan

 

POSSUM CONTROL AREAS

Enforcement

Where a land occupier does not adhere to the requirements of this Plan, an authorised person may issue directions for the control or eradication of possums under section 122 of the Biosecurity Act.

On default, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council may carry out work and recover the costs from the land occupier under sections 128 and 129 of the Biosecurity Act.

(a)     Previously controlled areas

When an Animal Health Board (AHB) possum control programme is withdrawn from an area, HBRC require the land occupiers within that area to form a Possum Control Area. Where a Possum Control Area is formed HBRC will either use relevant recent monitoring data or where that is not available, monitor the area to determine the possum densities. If required, HBRC will undertake any initial possum control work necessary to achieve possum densities at or below 5% trap catch and the land occupiers within the Possum Control Area will then be bound by the possum control rule in the Plan. Where land occupiers do not wish to establish a Possum Control Area, HBRC will use its powers under Section 122 of the Biosecurity Act to direct the land occupiers to maintain possum densities at or below 5% trap catch.

 

Rule: Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)

Every land occupier whose property has had initial possum control work carried out as part of either a Hawke’s Bay Regional Council or Animal Health Board programme since 1 July 1999, such that possum densities over his or her land are below 5% trap catch, at the completion of that initial control or at the time of withdrawal of AHB, shall maintain possum densities on that land at or below 5% trap catch in accordance with Possum Control Areas – section (c) Maintenance. A breach of this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

 

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

 

operational plan

plant pests

 

july 2015 to 30 june 2016

 

 

 


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.0      Introduction. 1

2.0      Background. 1

3.0      Measuring performance. 1

4.0      Total control plant pests. 1

5.0      Boundary control plant pests. 4

6.0      Biodiversity plants. 6

7.0      DIDYMO.. 6

8.0      Biological control of plant pests. 6

9.0      General advice and information. 6

10.0    Press releases and general information. 6

11.0    Monitoring methods for Total Control plant pests. 7

12.0    High Risk and QE11 Areas. 7

13.0    National Pest Plant Accord. 8

14.0    Management Programmes. 8

15.0    Enforcement. 8

16.0    Subsidy scheme. 8

 


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

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 Plan (RPMP).  This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

2.0       Background

HBRC is the management agency for the RPMP.  As the management agency HBRC is required to prepare an operational plan that sets out how the Plan 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 RPMP. HBRC’s annual plan details the expected level of expenditure by HBRC in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMP.  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 RPMP 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;

·          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 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 RPMP 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 RPMP 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 RPMP objectives. 

 

(i)      Table 1: 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 contractor should be able to control Privet on most properties within at least six weeks of a legitimate complaint. 

However, this does not apply to 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. (Appendix 1)

Spiny emex

HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity

White edged nightshade

HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity

Yellow water lily

HBRC will 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 will at its discretion control some 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 will at its discretion control some 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 support Marlborough District and Environment Canterbury in raising awareness of CNG within New Zealand and to help achieve milestones in the Sustainable Farming Fund CNG Project.

HBRC will encourage the use of the new control tool, Flupropanate as required. HBRC will assist Marlborough District Council and Canterbury Regional Council 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 will at its discretion control some 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 will at its discretion control some 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 will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so

HBRC will continue to work with its partners in Nature Central to achieve operational efficiencies and to target strategic infestations

HBRC will continue the clearing of Pinus contorta on multiple ownership land in the Rangitaiki area as resources allow.

Old man’s beard

The RPMP 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.

South of SH5 Council will still encourage the control of OMB but will not enforce compliance.  Landusers below SH5 will still be eligible for the incentive scheme for the control of OMB. HBRC will at its discretion control some 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 will 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 will 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 RPMP 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 RPMP 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.


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

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 RPMP. 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 2015 – February 2016 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 RPMP are Chilean needle grass, Nassella tussock, and Japanese honeysuckle.   Biological agents will be purchased for the control of Japanese honeysuckle and Californian thistle. 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 RPMP.  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 2015

Didymo

January 2016

Woolly nightshade

April 2016

Mothplant

March 2016

 Phragmites

March 2016

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 average 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 132 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 RPMP or any plants on the Pest Plant Accord.

14.0     Management Programmes

Biosecurity staff will negotiate and agree a management programme with NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) 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 RPMP then that officer will issue a direction under section 122 of the Biosecurity Act requiring them to comply with the Plan.  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 HBRC 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 subsidy budget for the 2015/16 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.

 


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 Pest Management Plan.

(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:

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

 2nd 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.

 3rd priority – all other complaints/enquiries.

(c)     Dealing with Privet hedges

Where a valid complaint is 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 occupier will not trim the hedge Biosecurity staff will arrange a contractor to trim the hedge at Councils cost.

 


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

Appendix 2: Plant Pest Subsidy Scheme Standard Operating Procedures

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 Pest Management Plan.

(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.  HBRC provides the control work for some total control plant pests with limited distribution.  Those plants for which HBRC 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

 

 

Australian sedge

 

 

Chilean needle grass

 

 

Cotton thistle

 

 

Japanese honeysuckle

 

 

Old man’s beard

 

 

Pinus contorta

 

 

Privet

 

 

Saffron thistle

 

 

Woolly nightshade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

 

Organisation of Subsidy Budget

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

 

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 RPMP.

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.

 


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.

 


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 HBRC 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


Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 3

 

http://data.hbrc.govt.nz/meetings/Open/2014/ESC_11062014_AGN_AT_files/image002.jpg

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

operational plan

 

Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management

 

july 2015 to 30 june 2016

Photo


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Background

3.0 Measuring Performance

4.0 Phytosanitary Pests to be Controlled

4.1 Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis)

4.2 Codling moth (Cydia pomonella)

4.3 European Canker (Nectria galligena)

4.4 Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora)

4.5 Lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana)

5.0 Flowchart - implementing the Operational Plan

6.0 Occupiers Responsibilities

7.0 Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Responsibility

8.0 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Responsibilities

9.0 Management Options for Controlling Phytosanitary Pests

10.0 Enforcement


 

1.0 Introduction

This Operational Plan focuses on the methods for implementing the control of Phytosanitary Pests as set out in the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association is responsible for monitoring of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. They will be the initial facilitator in responding to enquiries, and ensuring monitoring information is gathered in response to landowners’ complaints.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will assist Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association to achieve a satisfactory conclusion when their involvement and discussions have failed to resolve the issue.

2.0 Background

HBRC will be the management agency for the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. As the management agency HBRC is required to prepare an Operational Plan that sets out how the Plan is to be implemented. The Operational Plan will be reviewed annually. At the end of each financial year, Pipfruit New Zealand, and Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association in consultation with HBRC will report to council on the implementation of the Operational Plan.

3.0 Measuring Performance

HBRC staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year. These reports will document the performance of HBRC in achieving the objectives of this Regional Photosanitary Pest Management Plan including whether:

·    A complaints and enquiries register has been maintained, and follow up action has been taken as appropriate;

·    Any phytosantitary pest management control has been undertaken;

·    The cost of implementing this strategy.

4.0 Phytosanitary Pests to be Controlled

4.1 Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis)

Description

Apple black spot is a fungal disease, often referred to as apple scab outside of New Zealand. It is a wet weather disease, and rainy and humid conditions provide ideal conditions for infection. Even the smallest black spot is unacceptable for export.

Rule for Control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis) on their land from the presence of green tips until fruit harvest by applying Apple black spot fungicides on a calendar basis as per the fungicide label instructions.

A breach of this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Fruit so treated will not be available for export sale.

4.2 Codling moth (Cydia pomonella)

Description

Codling moth is a small speckled, grey moth, hosted by apple, pear and walnut trees. The larvae of Codling moth burrows into fruit leaving small holes. The Frass (droppings) indicates the presence of the larva. The moth over-winters as a dormant caterpillar in a cocoon under the bark of the tree or in the soil.

Rule for Control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) on their land if five (5) or more Codling moths are caught in any one Codling moth pheromone trap during any calendar week on their land.

A breach of the rule is an offence under the section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Codling moth.

4.3 European Canker (Nectria galligena)

Description

Initial symptoms of European canker are a small sunken area around a bud, leaf scar, or at the base of a small dead shoot or open wound. Concentric rings of a canker growth then appear. The sunken area increases in size with the centre becoming flaky, eventually it will girdle the stem and shoots above the canker die.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control European Canker (Nectria galligena) by inspecting all pipfruit trees on their land at least once during winter (May to August), and removing and burning all pipfruit trees showing any presence of European Canker.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of the pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control European Canker.

4.4 Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora)

Description

Blossom infection can result in “shepherds crook” of the shoot. Blossom appear water soaked then turn brown and finally black. Young fruit if infected turn brown, then black, wilt then drop off.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora) on their land during the pipfruit bloom period (from pink to petal fall) by applying Fireblight bactericides as per the bactericide label instructions.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Fireblight.

4.5 Lightbrown apple moth (Leafroller) (Epiphyas postvittana)

Description

Lightbrown apple moth adults are variable in colour and may be confused with other leaf rollers. Males have a forewing length of 6-10 mm with a light brown area at the base distinguishable from a much darker, redbrown area at the tip. The latter may be absent, the moth appearing uniformly light brown, as in the females, with only a slightly darker oblique markings distinguishing the area at the tip of the wing. Females have a forewing length of 7-13 mm, and colour varies from a uniform light brown, with almost no distinguishing markings.

Larval first instar has a dark brown head, while all other instars have a light fawn head and prothoracic plate (plate behind head). Overwintering larva are darker, while the mature larva is medium green with a darker green central stripe and two side stripes. Pupae are at first green, but become medium brown after rapid hardening.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Lightbrown apple moth (Leafroller) (Epiphyas postvittana) on their land once thirty (30) Lightbrown apple moths are caught in any one Lightbrown apple moth pheromone trap on their land from 15th December until fruit harvest.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Lightbrown apple moth.


 

5.0 Flowchart - implementing the Operational Plan

Text Box: Affected party notices increased phytosanitary management inputs in vicinity of suspected unmanaged production site

Text Box: HBRC action Text Box: Independent third party advises land owner that production site meets the criteria as an ‘abandoned production site’ and gives 14 calendar days notice to reach a satisfactory conclusion with affected neighbours. At the end of the 14 calendar days the case will be handed to the HBRC for action under their Regional Plan 

Text Box: Independent third party assesses checklist and agrees with affected party regarding impact and notifies HBRC of the issue by fully supported letter 

Text Box: Affected party monitoring over the next month shows clear difference in management inputs to previous 3 years data from affected production site 

Text Box: Crop dependent monitoring advice checklist 

Text Box: Independent third party advises affected grower on what needs to be monitored and what data will be needed

Text Box: No further action 

Text Box: No Resolution 

Text Box: Affected party monitors increased management inputs and reports issued to local independent third party (e.g. HBFGA)Text Box: Issue discussed with offending neighbour Text Box: Satisfactory resolution achieved through an industry recognised management strategy being implemented by the land owner

6.0 Occupiers Responsibilities

All occupiers of pipfruit production sites are expected to monitor for and control phytosanitary pests over their property.

Following an increase in presence of pests the affected occupier will contact the occupier of the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site to seek agreement that they will control phytosanitary pests on their land in accordance with the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan management regime.

When the adjacent pipfruit production site occupier does not agree to control phytosanitary pests, the affected occupier may contact Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association advising them of the problem when monitoring confirms:

·    There is a clear difference in the management inputs required to control Phytosanitary pests compared to the previous three years.

 

·    Or monitoring results indicate that the Phytosanitary pest outbreak is more severe along the boundary with the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site.

7.0 Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Responsibility

Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association has the following responsibilities:

·    Determining whether the adjacent pipfruit production site occupier has been affected by an increase of the presence of Phytosanitary Pests.

 

·    Assessing monitoring data on the affected managed pipfruit production site to confirm there is a clear difference in the management inputs required to control the phytosanitary pests compared to the previous three years, and/or that the pest outbreak is more severe along the boundary with the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site.

 

·    Advising the occupier of the unmanaged pipfruit production site that a complaint has been received regarding their inaction to control phytosanitary pests on the their land, and that Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association are now investigating the issue in accordance with this operational plan and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

 

·    Investigating and seeking agreement for the control of phytosanitary pests.

 

·    Advising the occupier of the unmanaged pipfruit production site(s), that they are deemed to be an exacerbator of phytosanitary pests.

 

·    Assisting occupiers to reach an agreement regarding the control of phytosanitary pests within 14 days, and providing technical support to monitor that the necessary control measures are undertaken.

8.0 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Responsibilities

HBRC will direct and enforce the provisions of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan when all steps have been taken to reach a satisfactory agreement by an independent third party (eg Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association), and a satisfactory conclusion has not been achieved.

9.0 Management Options for Controlling Phytosanitary Pests

There are three management options proposed for the control of Phytosanitary Pests:

·    The occupier of the pipfruit production site manage at their cost the phytosanitary pests on their land in accordance with current pipfruit industry pest management best practice for either organic or integrated fruit production.

 

·    The occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site allows an affected adjacent pipfruit production site to manage their pipfruit production site in a manner that reduces the level of risk. Costs of control are to be agreed between the two occupiers.

 

·    The occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site, at no cost to adjacent managed pipfruit sites, removes their pip fruit trees.

10.0 Enforcement

When a satisfactory conclusion cannot be reached between occupiers HBRC will consider a detailed report prepared by Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association on the unmanaged pipfruit production site.

When a landowner does not adhere to the requirements of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan, an authorised person may issue directions for the control of Phytosanitary Pests under Section 122 (Notice of Direction) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

On default, HBRC may arrange for the work to be carried out and recover the costs from the land occupier under sections 128 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (Notice of Intention to Act on Default) and section 129 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (Liens).

Criteria for enforcement is set out in each rule for each Phytosanitary Pest. Notices will be set out as per the rule in the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                              

                              


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Asset Management Plans for Adoption

 

Reason for Report

1.      HBRC is responsible for the administration and management of 25 flood control and drainage schemes which have been established under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.  Through these Schemes large areas of valuable land (including land upon which a number of key urban areas are situated) enjoy a significantly reduced flood risk and are provided increased options for the use and productivity of the land.

2.      The value of infrastructure assets (rivers drains and flood structures) managed under these schemes is in excess of $200m (Modern Day Equivalent).

3.      The 2014-15 budget for the operation, maintenance and improvement of these schemes is $7,683,000.

4.      HBRC has prepared Asset Management Plans (AMPs) for all of these Schemes. These plans have been distributed to Councillors and Committee members only, in hard copy, at this stage and will be publicly available upon request once Council has adopted them. These Plans describe the infrastructure assets associated with each of these Schemes and sets out the level of services for the Schemes that the community is benefiting from.

5.      This paper requests that the Environment and Services Committee considers these Plans and recommends their adoption to Council.

Discussion

6.      Asset management processes cover a range of HBRC responsibilities including:

6.1.      Establishing a level of service that meets the community needs – (this can be a balance between cost they are prepared to pay and risk they are prepared to live with)

6.2.      The process of linking the legal requirements and beneficiary expectations to the implementation of the operational activities in the most cost effective way

6.3.      Determining and delivering on the most cost effective management of the asset such that it continues to deliver the level of service it was designed to do

6.4.      Understanding and managing the effective life of the assets, the risk that they fail to provide the level of service, and the replacement timing and process

6.5.      Understanding changing expectations and managing these. This includes changing perception of risk, increased desire for sustainability and increased environmental and cultural focus.

7.      AMPs explain the legal requirements, physical aspects, design standards of the assets and the systems in place for their management, operation, maintenance and improvement over time.

8.      The cost of maintaining assets in accordance with the AMP’s is set out in the financial section of the AMPs. These costs are used in the development of the draft 2015-25 LTP.

9.      AMPs are living documents. While Council is requested to consider and adopt the AMP’s appended to this briefing paper, staff will discuss these with ratepayers of the various schemes as part of their ongoing work, and where appropriate shall consider whether they fairly reflect community expectations. For some schemes this will be done through reviews of the levels of service provided by the Schemes.


Decision Making Process

10.    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:

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

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

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

10.4.   No persons are affected by this decision.

10.5.   It is a requirement that HBRC demonstrate effective management of infrastructure assets. The attached document are a record of how HBRC plan to achieve this.

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Asset Management Plans for Adoption“ report.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Adopts, subject to any amendments the Committee wishes to make, the Asset Management Plans for:

2.2.1.      Heretaunga Plans Flood Control and Drainage Scheme

2.2.2.      Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme

2.2.3.      Small Schemes.

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: TBfree

 

Reason for Report

1.      HBRC will cease collecting targeted rates for contributing to the TBfree vector management programme of work under the National Strategy for the control of Bovine Tuberculosis at the end of the current financial year.  This proposed change is included in Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan (LTP).

2.      HBRC and Ospri (the new organisation which includes TBfree NZ) have a funding agreement covering the contribution of funding to the TBfree vector management programme that expires on 30 June 2016.

3.      Staff from HBRC and Ospri have discussed and reached agreement on transitional arrangements for the 2015-16 year.  This paper sets out those arrangements and proposes how those arrangements can be funded.

Discussion

4.      Possums are maintained at low numbers over the majority of productive land throughout the Hawke’s Bay region through the current Ospri programme and through the HBRC possum control area (PCA) programme. 

5.      Currently, approximately 400,000 ha is controlled under the Ospri programme and 507,000 ha is controlled under the HBRC PCA programme.  Approximately 25,000 ha is not controlled because of lack of support from land owners.

6.      Under the funding agreement between HBRC and Ospri, HBRC agrees to fund the vector control programme in Hawke’s Bay up to a sum of $640,000.  This is a three year agreement which expires on 30 June 2016.  Ospri and HBRC staff have discussed arrangements for the final year of this agreement and the transitional arrangements for funding from HBRC ceasing.

7.      As part of this agreement, when Ospri decides to withdraw control from any area, they are required to install bait station infrastructure necessary for the land owner to continue to maintain low possum numbers under the HBRC PCA programme.

8.      In the 2015-16 financial year an area of approximately 94,430 ha of land currently controlled under the Ospri programme is programmed to be transferred to the HBRC PCA programme.

9.      The agreed arrangements for the 2015-16 year are:

9.1.      That HBRC will be directly responsible for establishing bait stations over the 94,430 ha of land programmed to be transitioned into the PCA programme.  The estimated cost of undertaking this work is between $400,000 and $500,000.

9.2.      That HBRC will contribute $60,000 towards the vector management programme of work to be undertaken in Hawke’s Bay in the 2015-16 year.

9.3.      That HBRC will not contribute to the national costs of the Ospri organisation.

10.    While HBRC will be responsible for the costs of establishing the bait station network over land from which Ospri are withdrawing from, HBRC may not undertake all of this work in the 2015-16 year and may decide to delay the establishment on some properties depending on:

10.1.    The possum densities known to be on a property and their likelihood of increasing to levels that are difficult to control through a bait station network

10.2.    The outcome of discussions with farmers on properties throughout the area.

11.    Staff do however recognise that it is important bait station networks are established within a timeframe that ensures there is a low risk of possum numbers increasing significantly.

12.    Ospri representatives will attend the meeting.

Financial and Resource Implications

13.    The draft LTP provides for

13.1.    A sum of $140,000 in the 2015/16 year and $130,000 in the 2016/17 year under the biosecurity programme to meet the cost of establishing bait stations on land transferred from the Ospri programme to the HBRC PCA programme.

13.2.    A financial contribution to Ospri of $340,000 to be made from the biosecurity and Tbfree operational reserves.  These reserves are forecast to hold a total credit balance of $260,000 at 30 June 2015.

14.    The Bovine Tb programme is currently funded 70% from targeted rates and 30% from general funding sources. The Bovine Tb operational reserve is forecast to hold a balance of approx. $80,000 at the close of the 2015/16 financial year.  It is therefore proposed to meet the targeted rate portion ($42,000) of this contribution from this reserve; and the general funded portion ($18,000) from money unspent in the Regional landcare scheme in the 2014/15 financial year because the delay in the Board of Inquiry decision on Plan Change 6 has meant that there has not been the anticipated uptake from landowners.

15.    Staff are reviewing current budgets and expenditure within the biosecurity programme, to enable the establishment of bait stations over land no longer serviced by the Ospri programme as quickly as possible to minimise the risk of possum numbers building up on that land during this transition.

16.    A spread sheet setting out the proposed budgets is attached.

Decision Making Process

17.    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:

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

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

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

17.4.   No persons are affected by this decision

17.5.   Options have been discussed with Ospri

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “TBfree” report.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Endorses the transitional arrangements for HBRC provision of funding to Ospri and agrees to changes being made to the final LTP 2015-25 to reflect these arrangements.

 

 

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

1

LTP 2015-25 Budgets Animal Pests

 

 

  



LTP 2015-25 Budgets Animal Pests

Attachment 1

 



HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Te Mata Park

 

Reason for Report

1.      Te Mata Park Trust Board has recently announced that it will not be proceeding with its plans for a $4.3million Visitor & Education Centre.

2.      The decision follows an independent review of the project commissioned by the Trust to re-examine both the long-term sustainability of the project and its alignment to current and future community needs.

3.      Trust Board representatives wish to have to opportunity to advise Council in more detail of the reasons for this decision, and their plans for the future. 

4.      The attached document, provided by the Trust Board, provides a summary of the material that the trust Board representatives wish to discuss with Council.

5.      The Trust Board will request that Council:

5.1.      Retain the allocation of $500,000 in the Long Term Plan for the Te Mata Park Visitor & Education Centre for the period to 31 December 2015, and

5.2.      On presentation of the 10 year Park Management Plan in November or December 2015, consider options for re-allocation of those funds against identified development projects associated with the Park.

Decision Making Process

6.      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:

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

6.2.      The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation, however the proposal for HBRC to increase its contribution towards operational funding for the Park is included in the draft LTP which is currently open for submissions.

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

6.4.      No persons are directly affected by this decision.

6.5.      Options may be considered by Council as part of their deliberations.

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Te Mata Park” report.

2.      The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1.      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.

2.2.      Retains the allocation of $500,000 in the Long Term Plan for the Te Mata Park Visitor & Education Centre for the period to 31 December 2015 pending consideration of a 10 year Management Plan for Te Mata Park to be prepared and presented to Council prior to that date.

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1

Te Mata Peak Trust Board

 

 

  


Te Mata Peak Trust Board

Attachment 1

 








   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Environmental Monitoring & Reporting and Land & Water Aotearoa Website Update

 

Reason for Report

1.      To keep Council updated on progress with the Enviromental Monitoring and Reporting (EMaR) programme and development of the Land and Water Aotearoa website (LAWA) in conjunction with the regional sector response to the National Monitoring and Reporting Bill.

Background

2.      In February 2014, Environment Minister Amy Adams introduced an Environmental Reporting Bill. The Environmental Reporting Bill makes it explicit who has responsibility for environmental reporting, set the broad framework for the scope of reporting, and set out timing for reporting products.

3.      Under the proposed changes, the Secretary for the Environment and the Government Statistician will be responsible for environmental reporting. The involvement of the Government Statistician will ensure that reporting is conducted at arm's length from the government of the day. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can comment as she wishes on any aspect of reporting to provide a further degree of independence.

4.      The Environmental Reporting Bill proposes a new framework for environmental reporting. The environment has been divided into five environmental domains: air, atmosphere and climate, land, fresh water and marine. Information on biodiversity and ecosystems will feature in the land, fresh water and marine domains.

5.      The framework will include three main types of information: pressures, states and impacts.

6.      Pressures explain the human activities and natural factors that influence the environment. These answer the ‘why?’ questions about the domain – why the domain is in the condition it is in.

7.      States describe the biophysical condition of the environment. These answer the ‘what?’ questions about the environment – what are the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of that domain and how have they varied over time?

8.      Impacts explain what the state and changes in the state means by informing the ‘so what?’ questions about the environment – what are the consequences of changes in the state for New Zealand’s environment, economy and society?

9.      One domain will be reported on every six months. Once every three years, a synthesis of the five domains will be produced. The synthesis will have a focus on the overall picture of our environment, including interactions between each domain.

10.    The Government is also taking measures to improve quality and consistency of environmental monitoring – the data which underpins reporting. A number of collaborative initiatives with regional councils address issues of consistency, representativeness and accessibility. In addition to these measures, the regulation powers under section 360 of the Resource Management Act 1991 have been expanded to address any remaining issues that require stronger national direction.

11.    In response to this, the Regional Sector, in partnership with the Ministry for the Environment is developing an EMaR framework.  This is a journey the sector has been on for a number of years, in response to the National Reporting Bill, to become more consistent and integrated in the collection and presentation of environmental data.

12.    The EMaR framework will comprise integrated regional/national environmental data collection networks and widely accessible reporting platforms. Data would be available for Central Government, among others, for national reporting purposes.

13.    The major components of the framework are the data collection networks, regional databases, national data archive and public website/portal. In respect of the latter, the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa (LAWA) will be used as the public interface.

14.    As the regional sector and MfE are the main contributors of data and funding to the National Environmental Data Collection Networks and Reporting and LAWA projects, it is important that the ownership and governance model reflects their contributions.

15.    The following diagram outlines the combined ownership and governance structure associated with EMaR/LAWA;

16.    The Governance Board has set the immediate priorities for delivery in the following order:

Coastal Water Quality                        (Done)

Freshwater Quality                            (Done)

Water Quantity                                   May 2015

Lakes                                                 Late 2015

Air Quality                                          2015-16

Groundwater quality                          2015-16

17.    HBRC is the lead council in the development of the latest module, water quantity, and the test version of this new service will be demonstrated at the meeting.  HBRC staff, in particular Jeff Cooke our data coordinator, have been collaborating with Horizons Regional Council staff in the development of a Federated National Data system (FNDS).  This approach has revolutionized the approach to accessing and sharing data on a national platform like LAWA and has attracted international interest. 

18.    The FNDS will streamline the future modules and will save significant amounts of staff time in future by removing the need to manually load data into the system and in responding to data requests.

19.    The EMaR process has also drawn heavily on the National Enviromental Monitoring Systems (NEMS) project that has been active since 2012 in developing national standards for how data is collected in the field to ensure that it is consistent and robust technically.

20.    A demonstration of the test site for the water quantity module will be shown to the meeting.

Decision Making Process

21.    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 and Services Committee receives the “Environmental Monitoring & Reporting and Land & Water Aotearoa Website Update” report.

 

 

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: CHBDC Wastewater Treatment Compliance Update

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report is to provide an update on the progress of assisting Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to rectify the problems surrounding the discharge of treated wastewater from their Waipawa and Waipukurau wastewater treatment facilities.

2.      CHBDC staff will be in attendance at this meeting to provide a verbal update on progressing initiatives associated with achieving compliance at the 2 plants.

Background

3.      The Municipal wastewater treatment plants situated at Waipawa and Waipukurau have resource consents to discharge treated municipal sewage. Those discharges make their way to the Tukituki River.

4.      Those resource consents allow for a certain number of limit exceedences over a 12 month period, to remain compliant, however, sampling on the 18 December 2014 determined that the plants were in breach of their respective resource consents.

5.      Abatement notices were served on Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to rectify the situation. Those abatement notices outlined an agreed process and timeframe to rectify the situation and to bring the discharges in line with the resource consents granted.

6.      CHBDC are employing a two-pronged approach to addressing the issue. The first is to install Lamella clarifiers that will remove excess organic matter that is preventing the sand filters from operating correctly. The second is to continue working to find other ways to improve the operation of the plants.  The other options will be addressed in a verbal report from CHBDC staff.

7.      A secondhand Lamella clarifier has been purchased, refitted, installed and undergoing final testing at the Waipawa plant. The abatement notice requires this to be installed and operational by the 8 May 2015. An independent report on the results of this installation is then to be delivered to HBRC by 8 July 2015.

8.      Another Lamella clarifier has been built overseas and will be installed at the Waipukurau plant. The final date for installment is the 19 June 2015 with a similar independent report provided to HBRC by 19 August 2015.

9.      Alongside this process, CHBDC have undertaken other work to assist in rectifying the situation. CHBDC will provide a verbal update on this point and the general upgrades, to this committee.

Decision Making Process

10.    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 and Services Committee receives the “CHBDC Wastewater Treatment Compliance Update“ report.

 


 

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

Subject: Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project Update

 

Reason for Report

1.      Te Matau A Maui is made up of two significant projects:

1.1.   Cape to City is a large scale ecological restoration project focused on Cape Kidnappers and approx. 26,000ha of land between the Heretaunga Plains and the Cape Sanctuary and stretching almost to Elsthorpe in the south.

1.2.   Poutiri Ao O Tane includes ongoing maintenance of predator control and new species introductions along the eastern flank of the Maungaharuru Range including the area surrounding Boundary Stream.

2.      This report provides an update on the Cape to City project.  A presentation will be made at the meeting which will provide further information on the project.

Background

3.      Cape to City goals and objectives include:

3.1.   Proving a concept for feral cat, mustelid, hedgehog and rat to be integrated into HBRCs existing possum control area (PCA) programme.

3.2.   Enhancing and restoring natural habitat within productive farming land for increased biodiversity.

3.3.   Through the above providing increased habitat and range for species reintroduced into Cape Sanctuary,  Eg Pateke (brown teal), rifleman, robin, kaka, kakariki saddleback; skink and gecko; and the reintroduction of Blue duck onto the Maraetotara River

3.4.   Engaging urban communities in a much greater way into the value of biodiversity under the regional biodiversity strategy.

4.      The project is leading New Zealand on how this integrated predator control can take place on large areas of farmland and how that can provide better integration of biodiversity efforts over both public and private land.

5.      While significant positive biodiversity outcomes are expected the project is a full scale assessment of the feasibility and practicality of achieving these gains over large areas.  The project therefore includes a significant investment in research and technology development.

6.      The wide scale predator control concept behind Cape to City is challenging the current understanding of the impacts of predators and the economic and biodiversity benefits of their management.

Wireless technology

7.      A key element to low cost integrated predator control on farmland is reducing the labour cost of both initial and maintenance control. This is because 50-80% of the cost of any pest trapping operation is labour.

8.      An initial trial to test the operational robustness of wireless trap monitoring has been successfully undertaken under the Poutiri Ao o Tane project. The Cape to City project is upscaling this to test wireless trapping on six different areas within the Region. These six areas will be chosen to test wireless networks in different operational and social contexts. Community groups involved in predator trapping, farming leaders and challenging operational environments such as wetlands will allow wireless trapping to be further refined prior to a larger scale roll out in Cape to city in 2016.

 

Community Engagement and education

9.      An expected key outcome of the Te Matau A Maui project is to step change the profile and engagement of the community in biodiversity under the overarching umbrella of the HB Regional Biodiversity Strategy. To achieve this there is a particular focus on involving Maori, the urban community and schools.

10.    Ruud Kleinpaste, a nationally recognized and respected entomologist with a significant public profile has been secured as the Cape to City project ambassador.  He may be better known as “the bug man”.  Ruud has a national profile, inspirational vision of the value of biodiversity, and will be instrumental in communicating the key role of education and public engagement can and will play in the success of such initiatives.

Alignment with Hawke’s Bay draft Biodiversity Strategy

11.    Te Matau A Maui project is potentially transformational both in terms of biodiversity and community engagement. The two most significant impacts on NZ and HB’s unique biodiversity are plant and animal pests and loss of habitat.

12.    The concept expressed in the draft Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy of native species and habitats coexisting with our backyards will only be achieved if a cost effective way of reducing the impact of predators on our native fauna can be found and implemented.

Decision Making Process

13.    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.

 

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project Update” report.

 

 

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
 Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 May 2015

SUBJECT: Minor Items Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the Minor Items Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.  

 

 

2.  

 

 

3.  

 

 

4.  

 

 

5.  

 

 

 

     



[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.