Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: Riverbed Gravel Management Review

Reason for Report

1. This report marks a significant step in the review of the management of riverbed gravel resources in Hawke’s Bay, which was commenced in 2011 and has followed the recommendations of the “Scoping Report: Review of Riverbed Gravel Management, November 2010” which HBRC commissioned Tonkin and Taylor to prepare.

2. This Scoping Report identified a range of issues to be further assessed, and recommended further investigations to be carried out to assist in meeting these aims. HBRC commenced the recommended investigations in 2011 anticipating that they would be completed over a 7 year project timeframe. Increasing pressure on the gravel resource has resulted in the work being largely completed ahead of the originally planned schedule.

3. This briefing paper recommends that Council approves the attached Proposed Hawke’s Bay Gravel Management Plan (GMS) and Draft Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works (2017 version) (COP) for release as part of a Special Consultative Procedure in accordance with Section 84 of the Local Government Act 2002. These two documents are the outcome of this riverbed gravel management review.

4. Attachment 1 is a Statement of Proposal (The Proposal) and summary of the information contained in the Statement of Proposal.

Background

5. In the late 2000s it was recognised that the Hawke’s Bay riverbed gravel resource was increasingly under pressure, particularly in the proximity of the Heretaunga Plains whilst issues with oversupply are being experienced in the Ruataniwha Plains.

6. To address this a review was initiated to:

6.1. Improve HBRC’s understanding of riverbed gravel movement and the impact of gravel extraction on flood protection works and coastal processes

6.2. Enable HBRC to review its management regime for assessing the gravel resource and for managing its extraction

6.3. Inform co-management discussions with regard to the gravel resource and its management with Treaty Claimant Groups.

7. Staff believe that it is imperative for Council to have an effective framework for the ongoing management of the gravel resource within the region, supported by robust science and processes. The gravel review has filled many of the knowledge gaps, and this knowledge has been incorporated into the two documents proposed for the Special Consultative Process.

8. The effective management of gravel is essential for the ongoing performance of flood protection schemes administered by HBRC and which protect the regional communities living on the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains. To maintain flood capacity within the stopbanked reaches of the rivers crossing these plains it is necessary to extract accumulating gravel such that the bed level does not rise to a level where the flood capacity is compromised, and the risk of live tree edge protection being undermined is increased.

9. The majority of the easily accessible reaches of the rivers continue to be effectively managed through gravel extraction, but quantities of available gravel within these reaches continue to reduce. Gravel also continues to accumulate in the less easily accessible areas. The review has assisted HBRC gain a better understanding of the resource. Staff believe that the recommendations set out in the Proposed Gravel Management Plan – 2017, when implemented, will enable a better management approach.

Co-Management

10. The final objective of the review, i.e. to inform co management discussions, has only been partially completed. While staff have held a number of hui with iwi groups, these have yet to result in agreement on a co management framework.

11. Staff are keen to continue to progress this issue with iwi, and will report back to Council once a framework has been agreed upon.

Reason for Special Consultative Process

12. Legal advice has confirmed that management plans or strategies prepared by local government such as the GMP and the COP can be considered as ‘another matter’ under s104 (1)(c) of the RMA and further, can be afforded significant or even 100% weight during resource consent decisions. This is conditional upon:

12.1. A robust public consultation process being followed during the Strategy’s development

12.2. The GMP is consistent with the relevant Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan provisions

12.3. The GMP makes it clear that it is intended to ‘sit alongside’ the statutory RMA documents and it will be a factor taken into account in resource consent decisions under s104(1)(c)

12.4. The ‘Weight’ of the GMP is further strengthened by incorporation by reference within a Regional Plan.

13. The first stage of implementing the GMP is for HBRC to seek a global consent for the management of gravel within the region’s rivers from which the majority of gravel is extracted. This approach will provide a more definite mechanism for influencing where gravel is removed from for the benefit of the rivers within Scheme areas. To effectively implement the GMP it is imperative that both the GMP and the COP do have ‘weight’ under the RMA.

14. As the above conditions have, or will be met, both documents will be given ‘weight’ during Consent Authority decisions on resource consents for gravel extraction and works in and around waterways.

Requirements of Local Government Act – 2002 (LGA)

15. Section 82A Information Requirements for Consultation, Section 83 Special Consultative Procedure, and Section 83AA Summary of information of the LGA prescribe the contents of the Statement of Proposal. The following are attached and included:

15.1. Reasons for the proposal

15.2. An analysis of the ‘reasonably practicable’ options including the proposal

15.3. Drafts of the GMP and the COP

15.4. A Summary of the Information Contained in the Proposal.

16. The following requirements of Section 83 are all contained within The Proposal:

16.1. A description of how Council will provide an opportunity for persons interested in The Proposal to present their views

16.2. The period for providing those views

16.3. How the Summary of Information will be made widely available.

17. Section 83 of the LGA further requires that if the local authority considers on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal, a summary of the information contained in the statement of proposal is also required (which summary must comply with section 83AA). The Executive Summary of the Statement of Proposal has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 83AA.

Independent Panel

18. It is recommended that Council agrees to the appointment of an Independent Panel appointed under the Local Government Act to hear submissions and make a recommendation to the Council’s Regional Planning Committee. This recommendation is made in an attempt to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

19. It is proposed that the appointment of the Independent Panel is delegated to the Chairman of the HBRC Hearings Committee (Cr Peter Beaven) and the HBRC Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive.

Special Consultative Process and Timeline

20. The proposed timeframe for the Special Consultative Process is outlined below.

Friday 31 March 2017	Letters sent to Taiwhenua and other iwi groups, all gravel extractors, Fish and Game, Department of Conservation and Forest and Bird
Saturday 1 April 2017 Tuesday 4 April 2017	Public notice on Statement of Proposal
5 April 2017	Presentation is made to the Joint Planning Committee to advise the members of the project and the Special Consultative Process
April and early May	Meetings with stakeholder groups that wish to meet with HBRC to explain/discuss the content of Statement of Proposal
Thursday 20 April 2017	Public meeting in Central Hawke’s Bay to explain/discuss the content of Statement of Proposal.
Friday 5 May 2017	Submissions close
Friday 19 May 2017	Hearings to be held
Wed 7 June 2017	HBRC to consider Hearings Panel report and recommendations

Decision Making Process

21. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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 proposed within this briefing paper.

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

21.4. The persons affected by this decision those stakeholders and members of the public who have an interest in the management of rivers and waterways within Hawke’s Bay.

21.5. Options that have been considered are set out in the attachments to this briefing paper and the associated documents referenced within them.

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 and notes the “Gravel Review” staff 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 Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2.2. Adopts the Special Consultative Procedure for the Proposed Hawke’s Bay Gravel Management Plan and Draft Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and waterway Works - 2017 in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.

2.3. Consider the Statement of Proposal and after consideration and any amendments, adopt the Statement of Proposal as part of the Special Consultative Procedure specified in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.4. Considers the contents of the Executive Summary of the Statement of Proposal and confirms it is necessary to enable public understanding of the proposal in accordance with Section 83 1 b), and that it is a fair representation of the major matters in the statement of proposal and meets the other requirements of Section 83AA of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.5. Requests that staff carry out the Special Consultative Procedure as outlined in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and, in accordance with the proposed timeframe set out in this briefing paper and in the Statement of Proposal.

2.6. Agrees to the appointment of an Independent Panel appointed under the Local Government Act to hear submissions and make recommendations to the Council’s Regional Planning Committee

2.7. Delegates the appointment of the Independent Panel to the Chairman of the HBRC Hearings Committee and the Chief Executive or Interim Chief Executive.

Authored by:

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	Statement of Proposal	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Riverbed Gravel Management Review Summary	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works	Under Separate Cover
⇨4	Hawke's Bay Riverbed Gravel Management Plan - Draft for Consultation	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: Tutira Regional Park – Pine Forest Harvest

Reason for Report

1. This paper sets out the arrangements that are currently being worked through in preparation for that harvest, and seeks agreement from Council for those arrangements and to invest in the necessary harvest infrastructure in preparation for the harvest.

2. HBRC owns approx. 114 ha of pine forest within Tūtira Regional Park. This forest is due for harvest between 2018 and 2025.

Background

3. Tūtira Regional Park and this pine forest was purchased by HBRC during the late 1990s, including 114 ha of radiata pine established by previous owners from 1991-1998 for timber production and soil conservation.

4. The 2015-25 HBRC Long Term Plan included the expectation that between 2018 and 2025 net harvest revenues of approximately $2.8 million will be received by HBRC from this asset.

5. Harvesting and the construction, sediment management, and maintenance of associated infrastructure will need to be to a very high standard to address risks relating to extreme erodibility of this site and the sensitive nature of the Tūtira catchment. Accordingly this will be a key issue to be addressed in the development of the harvest infrastructure, during the harvest, and during the post-harvest period until new trees are established.

6. Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū has a significant interest in the area and their input has been and will continue to be sought through the Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust.

7. The forest is made up of 4 age classes. It is proposed that the forest be harvested in 3 lots to:

7.1. Minimise the risk of wind damage to unharvested parts of the forest exposed because of harvest of adjacent blocks

7.2. Reduce the cost of harvest infrastructure and harvest

7.3. Enable effective erosion control initiatives, and to

7.4. Enable post-harvest work to be undertaken efficiently and effectively.

8. It is proposed that harvest occurs as shown in the table below. However harvest dates need to be flexible to take advantage of market pricing and forest construction and harvest resources. Harvest of the first lot of forestry could occur done in the summer of 2017-18 or 2018-19 or over the two summers.

Area	Year Planted	Proposed Harvest Year
22.9ha	1991	2017-18 and/or 2018-19
19ha	1993	2017-18 and/or 2018-19
22ha	1992	2019-20
17.6ha	1993	2019-20
32.9ha	1998	2024-25

Harvest Traffic Options

9. The harvest will involve the transport of approximately 2,000 truck loads of timber from the forest. Staff have assessed three potential options for harvest access.

Option 1 - Utilising the current Regional Park Access road

9.1. The current access road is too narrow for harvest traffic to traverse safely in conjunction with Park user traffic. The road would therefore need considerable upgrading before it was suitable. The road traverses Department of Conservation owned land around the margin of the Lake and passes in close proximity to a number of sensitive sites of significance to Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū, which include the causeway between Lake Tūtira and Waikopiro. Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust has advised that they do not wish to have the volume of harvest traffic passing in close proximity and over sites of significance to them, and would oppose any upgrading that would have the potential to impact on any of these sites.

Option 2 - A newly constructed road through a neighbouring property to the north of the Park, linking onto SH 2 North of the Tūtira store and school

9.2. Staff have discussed this option with the neighbouring landowner and have almost finalised an agreement for the establishment of a road over the land. The draft agreement document includes a provision for an easement to be taken in favour of HBRC over the land to provide for the use of this access for future harvest rotations, and in the future for some traffic accessing the Park which is incompatible with its public use (e.g. bee keepers). The costs of construction of this accessway will be shared with the landowner as they have an area of forest on their land that is also due for harvest.

Option 3 - A route to link with Ridgemount Road to the north east of the Park

9.3. The use of this route would involve the construction of a new road with a significant climb for harvest traffic through the Park and up to Ridgemount Road.

10. Option 1 has been discounted because it would be unacceptable to Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū, and has the potential to significantly impact on sites that are significant to them. It would not provide long term security as an alternative route for Park traffic or traffic associated with the harvest of future forest rotations. It is also undesirable because of the impact that harvest traffic is likely to have on other Park users.

11. Option 2 is preferred over Option 3 because it is technically easier and therefore cheaper to construct. The option 3 route would add an additional 6km to the distance harvested logs would need to be carted compared to Option 2. This additional cartage distance would reduce harvest returns by an estimated $80,000. This is also undesirable from the perspective of extremely difficult roading in sensitive terrain.

12. Option 2 will involve the construction of approximately 4.2km of new road from the Tūtira pine plantation to SH 2. This will include the construction of a new bridge across Pāpākiri Stream (Sandy Creek), a new culverted crossing over Kahikanui Stream within Tūtira Regional Park, and the construction of an acceleration lane to NZTA specifications where the harvest road meets SH2.

13. The initial phase of construction of the option 2 route is estimated to be $355,000 for the road from SH2 to a distance of approximately 360m south of Pāpākiri Stream where the road will divide into two branches; one to an area of the land owners forest, and one to HBRC forest on Tūtira Regional Park. This is referred to as phase 1 of the roading infrastructure in the remainder of this paper. The cost includes the construction of the new bridge across Pāpākiri Stream, the acceleration lane at its junction with SH 2, and fencing and cattle stops in accordance with the draft agreement with the landowner.

14. The landowner’s forest is approx. 20ha in area representing approximately 15% of the total area of forest to be harvested and transported using the proposed road. The landowner has agreed to meet 15% of the cost of construction of the road to be used by both HBRC and the landowner. The landowner’s contribution will be approximately $55,000 plus the management and overseeing of the fencing work.

15. It is proposed that this phase 1 work commence immediately if practicable, subject to weather and contractor availability, and be largely completed by the end of this summer. Staff therefore seek agreement from Council to:

15.1. Authorise the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive to enter into an Agreement with the owner of the land over which the option 2 route will traverse.

15.2. Authorise the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive to commit to the construction of phase 1 of the roading infrastructure, including the bridge across Pāpākiri Stream, subject to competitive prices being sought for the construction of the road and bridge.

Harvest Costs and Revenue

16. Commencing early in the 2017/18 summer, it is proposed that harvest infrastructure be constructed from the end of phase 1 of the roading infrastructure to the HBRC forest. It is proposed to include this work under the forest harvest contract, with forest harvest companies employing the necessary resource to undertake the work. This work includes a culvert crossing of the Kahikanui Stream, sediment control provision on that stream, and a number of harvest skid sites with access roads throughout the area of forest to be harvested in the first lot, and is estimated to cost a further $660,000.

17. It should be noted however that at this stage a harvest date has yet to be finalised and therefore no decision has been made as to whether this work should be completed in the 2017/18 summer, or whether a portion of it could be left until the following summer. This is discussed following.

18. The best harvest returns can be achieved if the harvest timing is flexible. Timber prices fluctuate depending on normal commodity supply vs demand factors. Decisions regarding the actual timing of the harvest are best left until as close as possible to the potential harvest date when more accurate forecasting of timber prices is possible and those forecasts can be assessed against the availability of forest construction and harvest resources. The proposed harvest dates set out in the cash flow forecast below should therefore be considered as indicative. It is also possible that a prospective buyer may elect to take on the construction project, subject to any purchase agreement.

19. Staff recommend that the final decision regarding the timing of the harvest be delegated to the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive, with the expectation that he/she will seek expert advice on forecast prices for harvested timber and the availability of construction resources.

20. An indicative cash flow for the harvest period is attached.

21. It should be noted that the net return predicted in the cash flow forecast above is $2,000,000 compared to the $2,800,000 predicted in the LTP. This change is due to:

21.1. The original estimate assumption that the harvest traffic would be able to utilise the option 1 route. The additional cost associated with Option 2 over option 1 is estimated to be $200,000.

21.2. Increased cost provision for the management of environmental issues - $100,000.

21.3. Changes in the forecast prices of harvested timber, and a conservative estimate of likely timber volumes.

22. Staff believe that the above forecast represents a conservative net return to HBRC. This assessment will be able to be firmed up once an inventory of the forest has been completed, harvest proposals have been received, and a contract for the construction of phase 1 of the infrastructure has been let (ref para 13 above).

Optimising the value of harvest returns

23. In 2013 HBRC sought advice from specialist forestry company P F Olsen associated with the harvest of a part of Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve forest. On the basis of this advice Council agreed to seek proposals from forest companies operating in Hawke’s Bay on the basis of a managed graded log sale approach. Staff propose that this approach be used for seeking competitive prices for the harvest of the whole of the Tūtira forest, i.e. that due for harvest between 2018 and 2020, and with the option of that lot not due for harvest until 2024-25.

24. Under this approach forest inventory data and mapping will be provided to at least the three larger forestry companies operating in Hawke’s Bay who will be invited to submit proposals. Proposals will be expected to include harvest plans (showing roading and skidsite positions and costs), marketing plans showing log prices, log transport costs, harvest costs and overheads. It is important to note that only indicative log grade mixes will be able to be provided as part of the marketing plans, and prices will be subject to variation as market prices fluctuate, according to agreed criteria.

25. While this process will expose HBRC to some risk because of potential market fluctuations, staff believe it is better for HBRC to carry that risk rather than forestry companies pricing this risk into their bids.

26. Staff propose that the forest company proposals received together with the associated staff assessment and recommendations, be considered by the HBRC Tenders Committee which will make the final choice on acceptance of the preferred proposal.

Sediment management and Control

27. Forest harvesting will result in an increased risk of erosion from Tūtira Regional Park, with any sediment released and not effectively managed possibly entering Lake Tūtira. It is essential that the risk of sediment entering Lake Tūtira is minimised, both during the harvest process, and in the period until the site is replanted and the plantings have achieved sufficient maturity to provide stability and ground cover.

28. Forestry companies submitting proposals will be required to demonstrate how they propose to minimise the risk of sediment being deposited in the Lake. It is expected that they will consider and propose a range of mitigation measures including;

28.1. Harvest procedures and processes that will minimise soil disturbance and as far as possible disperse stormwater rather than concentrating it.

28.2. The installation sediment and slash control initiatives including silt fences and drainage control facilities, sediment traps, or ponds; methodology for slash management, rapid oversowing and replanting, and

28.3. Timing of harvest.

29. Staff propose to use an independent expert to assess sediment management proposals as part of the process of evaluating harvest proposals received. In addition, it is proposed to seek input from the Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group using their collective knowledge and experience to assist with establishing appropriate mitigation measures.

Replanting

30. Staff have yet to prepare a replanting plan for the harvested area. It is proposed that this is completed by September 2017 to enable plants to be secured for planting early the following winter. The replanting plan will need to take into account HBRC objectives for Tūtira Regional Park, and will be developed in conjunction with Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust.

31. Staff anticipate that this plan will be brought to either the July or September meeting of the Environment and Services Committee for approval.

Financial management

32. This paper sets out the estimated costs and indicative timing for roading, sediment control and other harvest infrastructure. The cost of this work is estimated as:

32.1. Phase 1 roading – 2016-17........................................ $300,000

32.2. Phase 2 roading sediment control skid sites etc –

2017-18........................................ $442,000

2018-19........................................ $215,000

33. This expenditure will be funded from harvest revenues estimated to be $580,000 (2017-18) and $584,000 (2018-19).

34. Further harvest proceeds of $1,100,000 (2019-20) will be available to fund HBRC general operations.

Decision Making Process

35. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

35.4. The persons directly affected by this decision are the owner of the land across which the proposed accessway will traverse and Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū represented by the Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust. There are many people who may be indirectly affected, including the users of Lake Tūtira.

35.5. Options that have been considered are discussed in the briefing paper.

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

35.7. 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. The Environment and Services Committee receives and takes note of the “Tūtira Regional Park – Pine Forest Harvest” staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Authorises the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive to enter into an Agreement for access and commitment for a permanent easement with the owner of the land over which the Option 2 route will traverse.

2.3. Authorises the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive to commit to the construction of Phase 1 of Option 2 harvest access road from SH 2 to approx. 360 m south of Pāpākiri Stream (estimated cost $355,000 with a landowner contribution of $55,000) commencing in the current financial year, including the bridge across Pāpākiri Stream, subject to competitive prices being negotiated for the construction of the road and bridge; noting that this expenditure will be repaid from the first harvest revenue.

2.4. Delegates the decision on the timing of harvest and construction of the associated infrastructure to the Chief Executive or interim Chief Executive, with the expectation that s/he will seek expert advice on forecast prices for harvested timber and the availability of construction resources.

2.5. Agrees that proposals for harvesting of the blocks to be harvested between 2018 and 2020 and construction of Phase 2 of the infrastructure including sediment control and skidsites (estimated cost $660,000) should be sought from forest companies operating in Hawke’s Bay on the basis of a managed graded log sale approach, with specific attention on the methodologies proposed for mitigating the risk of sediment entering Lake Tūtira, noting that this expenditure will be repaid from the first harvest revenue.

2.6. Agrees that Forest Company proposals received together with the associated staff assessment and recommendations will be considered by the HBRC Tenders Committee which will make the final choice on acceptance of the preferred proposal.

2.7. Notes that the expected net return from the harvest is conservatively assessed as being in the order of $2,000,000, which is less than the net return estimate included within the HBRC LTP 2015-25.

2.8. Notes that staff anticipate the Replanting Plan will be brought to either the July or September 2017 meetings of the Environment and Services Committee for approval.

Authored and Approved by:

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1	Indicative Cash Flow for the Harvest Period
⇩2	Map - Tutira Regional Park Forest - Roading Option 2

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: Activities Relating to Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the staff response to Council’s resolutions, following, passed at the 14 December Regional Council meeting, being that Council:

1.1. Requests that staff, with urgency, prepare a report summarising current and planned HBRC scientific and management activities relating to the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries, detailing expenditure over the next 3 year period, including a plan with full costings, to implement the recommendation made in section 9 of the “Estuaries of the TANK Catchments: Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries' Values, State and Trends” report.

1.2. Requests that staff prepare an assessment of all resource consenting and compliance management issues affecting these estuaries, including options for changes to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) for improved management of resource consenting processes, particularly with regard to both regulatory methods and those non-regulatory methods outlined in chapter 4.0 of the RRMP.

Waitangi Estuary

2. The report presentenced 14 December 2016 highlighted stress to the Waitangi Estuary resulting from increased sediment delivery, elevated nutrient levels, human disturbance and habitat reduction.

3. Council has invested significantly in the redevelopment of the Waitangi Park. This partly addresses two of the issues relating to habitat reduction and disturbance by vehicles.

4. There is recognition that other stressors operate at a catchment scale (Karamu, Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri) and are currently being addressed via the TANK Plan Change process.

5. Stressors relating to stormwater are also being addressed via the Stormwater Working Sub-Group of TANK.

Ahuriri Estuary

6. The report presented on 14 December 2016 highlighted stress to the Ahuriri Estuary resulting from expansion of a marine invasive, increased sediment delivery, elevated nutrient levels, habitat disturbance and reduction. Significant eutrophication has occurred in the upper estuary.

7. Council currently conducts monitoring in the estuary for estuarine habitat and water quality. An increased investment in estuary monitoring in recent years has underpinned the ability to detect these effects.

8. The Ahuriri Estuary is a site of significant cultural, ecological, social and recreational value, and has multiple governing bodies. In order to ensure that management of stressors and values is undertaken in a cohesive, co-ordinated approach is required.

9. Staff recommend the development of an Integrated Management Plan with relevant partners, which would increase the opportunity for successfully implementing recommendations.

Environmental Regulation

Resource Consents

10. There are 134 resource consents recorded as being current in the Ahuriri Estuary and Meeane Drainage Area. This consent area includes activities in Jervoistown, Taradale Onekawa, Pandora, Ahuriri, Westshore and north to Bay View. The consented activties range from stormwater discharge permits, discharge permits from closed landfills, air discharge permits, domestic waste discharge permits, bore permits, water take permits to coastal activities within the water space of the inner harbour and Pandora Ponds.

11. Some of these consents will be expiring in the near future such as the consent to discharge stormwater from the urban area via the Westshore tidal gates in 2018.

12. There are currently three replacement consents being processed within this area. Two of these are for irrigation takes and the third is for an industrial discharge to air.

13. Consent processing is guided by the Regional Resource Management Plan and in some cases by the Coastal Environment Management Plan. It is anticipated that the TANK project may lead to rules which set allocation limits for groundwater in this area, and to standards for the management of discharges to the water body including for stormwater. Land management plans may need to be considered for activities that are seen to be contributing to sedimentation, and nutrient inputs into the estuary. Attention may also be required for managing inputs into the stormwater networks that discharge to the estuary.

Compliance

14. There are four orchardists/ landowners alleged to be taking water from the Ahuriri Estuary without resource consent. Compliance staff have visited all four properties and spoken to the landowners, confirming that none of the properties is currently taking water from the estuary. In fact, the water quality is reportedly unsuitable for irrigation as it is too saline in composition. Additionally, all properties in these areas are connected to the town water supply for domestic use.

15. As a result of the site visits, it was confirmed that one operator had been taking an amount of water for a short period once a year for a number of years. That landowner has been contacted and advised that if he wishes to take water in future a resource consent will be required.

16. There was also a report of an unconsented discharge of water from tile drains and internal farm drains into the estuary from the Landcorp property. HBRC has been working with Landcorp for a period of time and Landcorp is in the process of preparing a resource consent application for that discharge.

Decision Making Process

17. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the staff update on “Activities relating to Ahuriri and Waitangi Estuaries” staff report.

Authored by:

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

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 15 March 2017

Subject: Re-release of Rabbit Calicivirus (RCD)

Reason for Report

1. The European rabbit is a significant pest in New Zealand causing both economic and environmental loss. Control has been ongoing for over 100 years utilizing a range of techniques including trapping, shooting and toxins.

2. Biological controls have been used for rabbit control and in 1998 RCD (also called RHDV1) was illegally released into New Zealand as a rabbit biocontrol. Rabbits are in many cases now immune to the strain of RCD virus released in 1998 and a re-release of the RCD virus with a strain that helps to counter that immunity is proposed for Australia in autumn 2017.

3. This next strain of RCD virus (RHDV1 K5) is currently going through an importation process in New Zealand with the possibility of release April - May 2017. RHDV1 K5 is not a new virus. It is a Korean strain of the existing RHDV1 virus already widespread in New Zealand. This report discusses that proposed release and broadly outlines Council’s approach.

Background

4. In September 1995 Viral RCD escaped from an Australian Government approved testing area on Wardang Island to mainland Australia. In 1997, the New Zealand authorities considered importing RCD as a biological control agent of the European rabbit but decided not to. Subsequently, it is believed that New Zealand farmers illegally imported RCD virus from Australia and spread RCD in the Mackenzie Basin area, deliberately infecting rabbits to spread the disease throughout the country.

5. Unfortunately, RCD was released after breeding had commenced for the season, and rabbits under 2 weeks old at the time of the introduction were resistant to the disease. These young rabbits were therefore able to survive and breed rabbit numbers back up. While it varies from site to site, rabbit populations are increasing across New Zealand with a large number of rabbits now immune to RCD. In Hawke’s Bay, blood sample monitoring has shown average immunity has gone from 8% to around 70% over the last decade.

Regional Pest Management Plan

6. Rabbits are a declared pest in the Hawkes Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (HBRC) long term goal is to minimise the adverse effects of rabbits on the region’s biodiversity and economic prosperity.

7. To achieve this HBRC conducts targeted surveillance of rabbit prone areas and, at its discretion, will meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control on rateable land. The landowner’s economic need is the major trigger for HBRC support for rabbit control operations. Occupiers are responsible for the control of rabbits on their land. HBRC also monitors RHD immunity levels in known or suspected RHD areas and has a regional network of rabbit night count monitoring lines.

Re-release of RCD

8. Over the last decade Australian government and industry joined forces in a global search for a new rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) strain to boost rabbit biocontrol effectiveness in Australia. The search and evaluation has led to a naturally occurring RHDV variant from Korea (RHDV1 K5) being selected. Australian authorities have given approval for the release of this strain in March/April 2017.

9. RHDV1 K5 is a variant of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV1) that causes a fatal haemorrhagic disease in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). It is specific to the European rabbit, and once a rabbit shows symptoms, death is rapid. There is no treatment or cure for rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD); however, a vaccine for domestic and production rabbits is available.

10. The New Zealand Rabbit Coordination Group (RCG) and Landcare Research are seeking approval from Ministry for Primary Industries and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to introduce K5 into New Zealand. This will help control rabbit damage which costs the agricultural industry millions of dollars annually in control and lost production each year.

11. Both variants cause the same disease; however, the RHDV1 K5 variant is better adapted to overcome the protective effects of the immunity in Calicivirus detected several years ago in rabbits.

Impact of re-release of RCD strain RHDV1 K5 – A controlled release is important

12. A controlled release is preferable to ensure a higher-quality commercially prepared product is used to infect rabbits. This will also allow the release to be appropriately managed and monitored. This approach will increase the likelihood of success and maximise benefits to farmers and the environment.

13. While exact knockdown figures are unknown, population reductions like those seen with the release of Calicivirus in 1996-97 are not expected. Knockdowns are expected to be conservative, depending on location and susceptibility of the rabbit population to RHDV1 K5, figures of between 30%-40% have been suggested.

14. The use of the RHDV1 K5 variant should improve the effectiveness of RHDV in cool-wet regions and continue to suppress rabbit numbers throughout their distribution, particularly in conjunction with other forms of control.

15. Domestic or pet rabbits are at risk from the RHDV1 K5 virus and a vaccine is available. The currently available RHDV vaccine will protect domestic/pet rabbits against RHDV1. There are no human health risks associated with RHDV.

National approval process

16. The New Zealand Rabbit Coordination Group (RCG) is coordinating the approvals processes. RCG includes representatives from regional and district councils, the Ministry of Primary Industries, Federated Farmers, the Department of Conservation, and Land Information. The applicant for the approvals on behalf of the RCG is Environment Canterbury.

17. Three statutory approvals are required to register, import and release RHDV1 K5 in New Zealand:

17.1. a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) approval

17.2. registration under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM)

17.3. an unwanted organism approval under the Biosecurity Act (BSA).

18. The Rabbit Coordination Group submitted a HSNO application to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in September 2016 and this is currently being processed.

Proposed Release Date

19. The programme for securing the relevant approvals is targeted towards a release window of March/April 2017. This window aligns with the proposed Australian release, and is also when biological conditions are likely to be most favourable for RHDV1 K5.

20. The following high level programme is proposed to meet the release window:

20.1. Stakeholder engagement September to November 2016

20.2. Final permit applications (ACVM, HSNO and BSA) submitted October 2016

20.3. Approvals by February 2017

20.4. Importation February 2017

20.5. Release March/April 2017.

Hawke’s Bay Release

21. Subject to national approvals being gained biosecurity staff propose a Hawke’s Bay release of RHDV1 K5 around May 2017. Staff are currently preparing an implementation plan for the proposed release, which will discuss engagement with key stakeholders, operational delivery and costs. It is proposed that costs be met from the rabbit reserve held by HBRC. This Reserve was established to enable HBRC to contribute to rabbit control works, and is funded from annual contributions from the biosecurity project. As at 31 December 2016 this Reserve held a credit balance of approximately $63,000.

22. The implementation plan will be discussed with major stakeholders so that they are aware of what is proposed and have the opportunity to input into it. As RHDV1 K5 is a Korean strain of the existing RHDV1 virus already widespread in New Zealand discussion on the implementation plan will be the principle means of engagement.

Decision Making Process

23. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Re-release of Rabbit Calicivirus (RCD)” report.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

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 15 March 2017

Subject: 2016 National Environmental Standard for Air Quality Monitoring Results

Reason for Report

1. To provide Council with an update on the results of air quality monitoring and research carried out in 2016. It summarises the continuous and screening PM₁₀ monitoring undertaken in the region in 2016. It also outlines results from an Air Emission Inventory completed for the Awatoto airshed and modelling of PM₁₀ concentrations emitted from open air burning associated with orchard redevelopment.

Background

2. Air Quality in Hawke’s Bay is very good most of the time but levels of fine particulate (PM10) can exceed health standards in winter months. Exposure to PM₁₀ is linked to respiratory and cardiovascular ailments as well as being carcinogenic. The estimated impacts on the population of Hawke’s Bay annually are more than 100,000 restricted activity days, 54 hospital admissions, 113 premature adult deaths and social costs of $411 million, based on data from 2006 (Kuschel et al., 2012).

3. The National Environmental Standard (NES) for PM10 is 50 μg/m³ averaged over 24 hours, with only one exceedance allowed in an airshed in a twelve month period. While there is no known “safe level” of PM₁₀, the standard is set at a level of “acceptable risk”.

4. Airsheds have been given time to comply with the NES. Airsheds exceeding the standard more than ten times per year on average must have no more than three exceedances from September 2016 and then fully comply from September 2020. Airsheds that average more than one but less than ten exceedances per year must comply from September 2016. Airsheds that average one or fewer exceedances per year must continue to comply.

5. The Council monitors PM₁₀ concentrations on a continuous basis at one site each in the Napier, Hastings and Awatoto airsheds. The sites are at Marewa Park, St John’s College and Waitangi Road respectively. The Hastings airshed must fully comply with the NES from 2020, Napier from September 2016 and Awatoto is already limited to no more than one exceedance.

Continuous PM₁₀ monitoring – Hastings, Napier and Awatoto

6. Napier and Hastings airsheds are both residential airsheds and Awatoto is industrial. Exceedances of the NES in Napier and Hastings are limited to the colder months from May to August inclusive. The main source of particulates at those sites is residential wood smoke. Exceedances of the NES in the Awatoto airshed can occur in any season. The main source of particulates at the Awatoto site is most likely windblown dust and sea salt.

7. The PM₁₀ standard was exceeded seven times in Hastings in 2016 and was not exceeded in Napier or Awatoto (Figure 1). The results in Napier and Awatoto compare well to 2015 and mean that both airsheds have recorded one or fewer exceedances in four of the last five years. The Hastings result is an increase on 2015 but is better tan the long-term average. Achieving the required limit of three or fewer exceedances in Hastings this winter is likely to be challenging.

8. The maximum concentrations recorded in Napier, Awatoto and Hastings were 33.8 µg/m³, 46.9 µg/m³ and 70.6 µg/m³ respectively. The Napier concentration is the lowest since continuous monitoring began and continues a downward trend. Awatoto also had its lowest maximum concentration in a calendar year. The Hastings concentration is higher than 2015 but the ten year remains downward (Figure 2).

Figure 1: The number of times each year the NES for PM₁₀ has been exceeded in the Hastings, Napier and Awatoto airsheds.

Figure 2: Hastings maximum and second highest winter PM₁₀ concentrations and the winter average.

9. Weather plays a role in poor air quality by either dispersing pollutants or trapping them close to ground level. The latter occurs when a temperature inversion develops during calm, frosty overnight conditions. The frequency of these conditions in late autumn and winter influences the number of times the NES is exceeded in Napier and Hastings. Normalised PM₁₀ concentrations, which are concentrations adjusted to take account of year-to-year changes in weather conditions, decreased in Napier and increased in Hastings in 2016 compared to the previous year. The normalised PM₁₀ concentrations have been trending downwards over the long term in both cities.

Screening PM₁₀ monitoring – Ahuriri

10. PM₁₀ concentrations were monitored at Port Ahuriri School from April 2015 to April 2016. Samples were collected every third day throughout this period, using a MIcrovol instrument. Microvols are not approved under the NES for measuring against the standard and provide indicative measurements only. The monitoring was undertaken in response to complaints received about particulates in that area.

11. The 24 hour average concentrations at Port Ahuriri School exceeded 50 μg/m³ on two occasions, reaching 63 and 58 μg/m³. They both occurred during winter 2015 and were not recorded at any of the Council’s continuous monitors. A strong, gusty northwest wind is associated with one of the occurrences and windblown silt from Ahuriri Estuary is a possible source. The cause of the other occurrence is unclear but it occurred under light wind conditions, suggesting the source is local to the site.

Awatoto Emissions Inventory 2016

12. An Air Emission Inventory (AEI) is an estimate of the contribution of different anthropogenic sources to emissions of contaminants within an airshed. The AEI includes all the contaminants under the NES - particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. The sources considered are domestic heating, transport and industrial activities.

13. AEIs have been undertaken in the Napier and Hastings airsheds every 5 years since 2005. The AEIs identify domestic heating as the main anthropogenic source of winter PM₁₀ and carbon monoxide. The first AEI for the Awatoto airshed was produced in 2016. The AEI estimates 90% of contaminants from anthropogenic sources is attributable to industry. Contributions from transport and domestic heating are relatively minor, at 9% and 1% respectively. Natural sources are not included in the inventory but they are considered significant contributors to measured PM₁₀ concentrations in the Awatoto airshed. A study examining the composition of PM₁₀ samples is nearing completion.

Modelling of open air burning of material from orchard redevelopment

14. AEIs for Napier and Hastings indicate that residential woodsmoke is the predominant source of anthropogenic emissions to PM₁₀ concentrations in those airsheds. Open air burning associated with orchard redevelopment undertaken during winter months is a very visible source of PM₁₀ and its contribution to PM₁₀ concentrations in the airsheds is difficult to quantify. Hourly profiles of PM₁₀ concentrations at the Council’s monitoring sites suggest the contribution is not large, as peak concentrations occur during the evening when domestic heating is more prevalent. A monitor placed in an area of orchards on the outskirts of Hastings in winter 2014 recorded the lowest concentrations of several monitors located in Hastings that year.

15. PM₁₀ emissions from open air burning on orchards is difficult to monitor, as the activity is sporadic. Golder Associates was commissioned by the Council to model two case studies of burning activities on orchards to estimate their potential contribution to airshed concentrations. Dr Emily Wilton of Environet Limited provided the case studies, based on consultation with orchardists in the region. The case studies represented a typical burn of diseased material and a typical burn of material from orchard redevelopment. The latter involves removal of approximately 1-2 hectares, resulting in approximately 40 tonnes of material being burnt over 2-3 days. Locations around Hastings and Meeanee were included in the modelled scenarios.

16. Conclusions from the study are limited by assumptions made about burning activities and conditions, which are variable. The modelled concentrations were assessed against the NES, selected one hour criteria and the significance criterion applied to new air discharges in polluted airsheds. The significance criterion is an increase in ambient levels of 2.5 µg/m³ or more.

17. The model results (Figure 3) indicate that the highest impacts are confined to within 200 metres of the source and the significance criterion is exceeded no more than 2 km from the source. One hour and 24 hour concentrations were assessed at a number of receptor locations. The receptor with the highest 24 hour concentration was number 2 with 5 µg/m³ and the highest hourly concentration of 26 µg/m³ was recorded at receptor 3. The study suggests impacts of orchard burning are relatively localised and do not contribute significantly to the concentrations measured at the Council’s monitoring sites in Napier and Hastings.

Figure 3: Modelled peak 24 hour PM₁₀ concentrations from the orchard redevelopment case study at locations in Hastings and Meeanee. Yellow dots and numbers represent receptor locations where concentrations were determined.

Summary

18. The NES for PM₁₀ was not exceeded at the Napier and Awatoto monitoring sites in 2016. The standard was exceed seven times in Hastings. It will be a challenge to meet the required limit of no more than three exceedances in Hastings this year however the long-term trends remain downward.

19. Results from PM₁₀ monitoring in Ahuriri suggest the location may have some unique local sources. Monitoring was undertaken using non-standard methods.

20. An AEI for the Awatoto airshed highlighted industrial emissions as the main anthropogenic source of PM₁₀.

21. Orchard burning activities were modelled and the results suggest they do not contribute significantly to ambient PM₁₀ levels measured in the Napier and Hastings airsheds.

Decision Making Process

22. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and takes note of the “2016 National Environmental Standard for Air Quality Monitoring Results” report.

Authored by:

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	2016 Awatoto Air Emissions Inventory	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Emissions to Air from Orchard Burning in HB	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	Impacts of Orchard Waste Burning Around Hastings	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: Clean Water Discussion Document as it Relates to Human Health for Recreation

Reason for Report

1. As part of the ongoing reform around freshwater management, Government has recently released a discussion document that sets out proposed further changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (NPSFM).

2. While the proposals set out a range of changes or amendments to the NPS this report is focussed solely on the proposed changes to introduce a new attribute to the National Objectives Framework (NOF) for human health for recreation.

3. The paper updates the committee on the proposed changes, what actions are occurring as a result these proposals and the process for review and preparation of submissions.

4. Notes that our existing recreational bathing sites monitoring will continue as it has historically until any changes are legislated.

Background

5. The NPSFM includes a series of compulsory national values and some additional values. The compulsory values are:

5.1. Te Hauora o te Wai – Ecosystem health

5.2. Te Hauora o te Tangata – Human health for recreation.

6. Associated with each compulsory value is a set of attributes or measures that are in the NOF. These attributes are banded from A to D, with a national bottom line that all attributes must be above (band D). Having the attributes banded allows communities to see how well their values are being protected, as the higher the band they sit in, the better the protection is for that value. The current attributes include:

Ecosystem Health

6.1. Phytoplankton in lakes

6.2. Total nitrogen in lakes

6.3. Total phosphorus in lakes

6.4. Periphyton in rivers

6.5. Nitrate in rivers

6.6. Ammonia in lakes and rivers

6.7. Dissolved oxygen in rivers below point sources

Human health

6.8. Escherichia coli (E. coli) in lakes and rivers.

7. Each attribute has a prescribed method of measurement against which the ‘state’ or position can be assigned to a band. This ensures consistency in measurement and reporting on a national scale and allows communities to assess where the attribute state is and if any improvements are required or desired.

8. The recent Government announcements replace the current attribute table for E. coli under the human health value. This is in response to the feedback received by the Ministry for the Environment during a series of roadshows following the release of the NPSFM. The message received by Government was that the existing table that set a national bottom line that protected rivers and lakes to a wadeable standard was not enough. There was a strong push for a standard that reflected what is called ‘swimability’ or a standard that reflected a community desire to have water quality that safely allows full immersion in the water.

9. There was significant misunderstanding of the old attribute, in that the national bottom line did require that waterbodies should be managed to at least allow wading but that it also allowed communities, through their regional planning, to have higher standards as they saw fit. It did not prescribe that wading was all that could be achieved; it just set that as the minimum.

10. Of note, in the TANK process swimability as a value has come through strongly and the policy development was going in that direction anyway.

11. The new approach is attempting to reflect that waterbodies should be assessed against a standard of full immersion. In developing this approach it was recognised that this is not a binary thing, that is a waterbody is not ‘swimmable’ or not, but that the vast majority of New Zealand’s waterbodies are ‘swimmable’ some of the time, some more than others.

12. When assessing at a point in time whether a waterbody is swimmable or not, levels or concentrations of E. coli are used as an indicator of general faecal contamination and a risk grading given depending on the concentrations found. This reflects the risk of infection should a person inadvertently consume water when engaging in full immersion activities. The more contamination in the water the greater the risk if water is accidently consumed.

13. The revised approach is one that assesses the level of risk over time. In other words, it sets a level of risk based on exceedance percentiles of a concentration of E. coli (540/100 mL) and then sets bands based on the amount of time that this threshold is exceeded. The more often it is exceeded the lower the band or the worse the water quality.

14. Of note, is that the guideline values (including the 540/100 mL) for assessing risks are under review. The original MfE Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas were written in 2003 and the science has moved on significantly since then. Understanding risk and the relationship between indicator bacteria are examples. The MfE is funding the review and has engaged the regional sector science community in this work. This may result in the attribute table being updated in future.

What is the Government’s current proposal?

15. The ‘Clean Water’ document (Attachment 1) sets out what is proposed in detail. The salient points are that:

15.1. The targets are based on 45,000 km of swimmable river length throughout NZ

15.2. ‘Swimmable’ is defined as when the water quality is in the excellent (A), good (B) and fair (C) categories on page 11 of the Clean Water document, or where faecal contamination is less than the guideline value of a median of 540 E. coli/100 mL, 80% of the time

15.3. Swimmable or safe to swim is based on the microbiological risks alone and does not consider things such as flow rates, weather or cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)

15.4. The document sets out some key goals:

15.4.1. To increase the proportion of New Zealand’s rivers classified as swimmable to 80% by 2030

15.4.2. To increase the proportion of New Zealand’s rivers classified as swimmable to 90% by 2030

16. Regional councils are required to tell Government, by October this year, what draft targets they have set for their waterbodies; and finalise those by March 2018, including how they will be achieved. This is a significant body of work.

17. By its own admission, Government acknowledges that it has set ambitious challenges.

What is good about this proposal?

18. The new approach now allows communities to see how their waterbodies are performing and how they can be changed rather than a binary view that a waterbody is swimmable or is not. This approach also allows communities to assess what improvements they want to make to their waterbodies and then to identify steps to achieve this.

19. The notion that a waterbody is either swimmable or not is replaced with one that a water body is swimmable some of the time throughout the year and that there is an option of increasing the amount of time it is swimmable.

20. It seeks to improve the monitoring and reporting of information about water quality through the LAWA website, which the regional sector is a significant investor in.

21. It has driven a comprehensive review of the outdated 2003 guidelines.

What is uncertain about this approach?

22. As we examine the document we will identify further matters that require clarification. The following points set out our initial thoughts.

23. It is not clear in the policy how the assessment of whether a river is swimmable or not relates to the NOF attribute. The discussion document highlights that the breakpoint is anything classified as fair or better (see the summary box on page 11 of the Clean Water document). While this summary sets out that anything in band D or below is unacceptable or not swimmable, it is not clear in the policy how this relates to the attribute table on page 39. In other words, what is considered swimmable or not has not been described in the policy.

24. The policy applies to rivers that are fourth order or greater. Attachment 2 to this report is a regional scale map that shows what rivers in the Hawke’s Bay this captures. There is some conjecture in the media that smaller rivers are therefore not protected. While the way that the policy is written may give that impression, the practical reality is that the smaller rivers must be managed to ensure water quality in the larger ones. We intend to seek clarification on this matter and to suggest improved wording.

25. There is supporting information and detail on the MfE website (called Table 1) that outlines the attribute states in the NPSFM the metrics that define them. There is an apparent omission in the metrics in Table 1 and the ones in the proposed NOF attribute table. Importantly there are four tests involved in establishing the attribute states for rivers from A to E. All four tests have been used in determining the categories identified in the NOF attribute but only one is then used in the NOF attribute.

26. This has given rise to the public criticism that the Minister has ‘shifted the goal posts’. In New Zealand, there is a high correlation between the four tests. If you meet one, it is highly likely that all four tests will be met. If this is correct then the standards have not been relaxed. We want to better understand the relationship between the tests as they relate to our rivers.

27. We are uncertain if compliance with the NOF attribute is to be assessed over an entire catchment or just at the identified points at which people currently swim, when they want to swim there. We currently monitor our recreational bathing sites weekly during the bathing season (summer months). The approach as written looks to assess performance against an entire river length, all year around. This is at odds with MfE’s own guidance for assessing the performance of bathing sites.

28. The monitoring requirements are outlined in Appendix 5 of the Clean Water document on page 43. The requirement for daily sampling is unclear and, as written, potentially requires a large investment in additional monitoring if a catchment is found to have a site that exceeds the threshold. It is also unclear how the thresholds set in Appendix 5 relate to the attribute table, as the levels are different.

29. Recent studies by the MfE have shown that there can be marginal improvements in microbiological water quality even with a large investment in stock exclusion measures. It is possible that for some catchments land use change may be the only option that will meet targets. In some catchments the targets may never be able to be met due to high levels of naturally occurring E. coli.

30. The work required to fully understand what improvements can be made to allow draft targets to be reported by October is significant. We will need to be able to model the impact of any changes (such as land use change or stock exclusion) on improving microbiological indicators, how long improvements will take, and what the costs of the required changes are, both in physical works and impact on our economy and communities. We have agreement with the MfE to work with us to provide modelling capability to understand what microbiological improvements are possible using the various initiatives (stock exclusions, riparian improvement, land use change). This will also flow into economic modelling.

31. A significant challenge is that the Government is looking for a public commitment to a target level of improvement from Council. To achieve this will have resourcing implications or costs to our community that may need to be run through special consultative processes. We will be seeking clarification on how we can report on targets and still meet our Local Government Act requirements.

Next steps

32. We are working with MfE staff to arrange workshops for Science and Policy leads to discuss and clarify points of uncertainty or matters of interpretation.

33. A more comprehensive submission needs to be lodged by 28 April 2017. This will cover the broader policy reform, as well as this aspect. It is proposed that the submission goes to the Regional Planning Committee on 5 April first, and then to Council for adoption on 26 April.

Decision Making Process

34. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Clean Water Discussion Document as it Relates to Human Health for Recreation” report.

Authored and Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	February 2017 Clean Water document		Under Separate Cover
⇩2	Regional scale Map

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: March 2017 Public Transport Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with an update on Council’s public transport operations.

General Information

2. Service changes introduced in late September 2016 are bedding in well. Routes with improved services are growing in patronage, with the new Route 10 carrying 85% more passengers than in its first month of operation. However, this is countered by a decline on some other routes. Overall, we are hopeful that the recent trend for patronage decline is slowing, with passenger numbers for the year to date only 12,000 fewer than last year.

3. Patronage in regional centres around the country continues to decline, with decreases consistent with those seen in Hawke’s Bay. For example, Otago Regional Council recently reported a 4% year on year decline in patronage of the Dunedin bus service. Most regional councils consider that lower petrol prices and improved economic conditions are the major reason for this, particularly in areas where there is little or no traffic congestion and easily available, cheap or free parking.

4. We continue to work closely with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (DHB) on the implementation of their travel plan. The DHB has recently approved extension of free bus fares to hospital or outpatient clinic appointments for all patients travelling on any goBay service. Previously, only patients travelling from Napier to Hastings Hospital were eligible for this. Extension of the free bus service for patients commenced on 1 January and 798 passengers have been carried in the first two months, an increase of 71% when compared with the same period last year.

Bus Passenger Trips

5. Table 1 shows monthly bus passenger trips for the year to date over the last five years.

Table 1 – Monthly Passenger Trips – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17

	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Total
2012-13	59,275	74,493	61,847	60,530	64,913	46,029	47,577	67,463	482,127
2013-14	64,869	78,729	69,564	63,807	67,784	50,219	48,391	70,647	514,010
2014-15	64,349	73,204	68,927	62,049	64,088	48,558	43,049	63,065	487,289
2015-16	59,690	67,216	62,415	56,548	58,647	44,812	35,631	62,609	447,568
2016-17	52,069	67,946	58,772	53,911	60,933	43,168	38,223	60,175	435,197

Table 2 – Changes in Patronage for the year to date 2015-16 to 2016-17 by route

Route	Change YTD 2015-16 to 2016-17
Route 10 Napier-Taradale-Hastings Express	New route – no comparator available, but carried its highest load of 865 passengers in February.
Route 11 – Napier-Clive-Nth Express	á 29%
Route 12 – Napier- Hastings via EIT	â 4%
Route 13 – Napier-Tamatea-Taradale	â 11%
Route 14 Napier-Maraenui-Onekawa	â 11%
Route 15 – Napier- Ahuriri – Westshore –Bayview	â 0.5%
Route 16A	â 8%
Route 16B	á 1%
Route 17	á 21%
Route 20	â 1%
Route 21	á 5%

Table 3 – GoBay bus patronage by user group (2016-17 YTD)

User Group	% of Passengers
Adults	17
Children, including high school students	28
Community Service Card	16
SuperGold	18
Senior	2
Tertiary Students	12
DHB Travel	1
Other (Transfers, 10 trips, promotions etc)	6

Bus Service Costs

6. The following table shows the net cost (after fares and excluding GST) of operating the goBay bus service for the eight months to February between 2012-13 and 2016-17.

7. The table also shows the average cost per passenger and cost per passenger-kilometre. Passenger–kilometres is a measure widely used for reporting public transport results, as it reflects the distance that passengers have travelled, rather than just a head count of boardings.

Table 4 – Annual net cost, cost per passenger and cost per passenger-kilometre (excl GST)

Year	YTD net cost	YTD Net cost per pax	YTD Net Cost per Passenger-KM
2012-13	$ 1,824,921	$3.79	$0.33
2013-14	$ 1,699,924	$3.31	$0.30
2014-15	$ 1,462,882	$3.00	$0.30
2015-16	$ 1,473,433	$3.29	$0.32
2016-17	$ 1,438,463	$3.30	$0.31

(52% of this cost is met by the New Zealand Transport Agency).

Fare Recovery

8. Fare recovery is the portion of the total cost of the service that is covered by fares (including Supergold payments from central government). Table 5 shows fare recovery for the 8 months to February for the last five years.

9. Fare recovery rates can vary considerably from month to month, depending on when quarterly indexation payments are made to the bus operator. Final indexation payments from the previous contract were made in January 2017, and it is expected that the fare recovery rate will improve by year end as the effect of these final payments is smoothed out.

Table 5 – Fare Recovery

2012-13	33.27%
2013-14	36.32%
2014-15	38.10%
2015-16	37.40%
2016-17	37.41%

Bus Stops

10. In 2016 Hastings District Council decided to relocate the main bus stop at Eastbourne St to a position one block further south east, in front of the Library. A large new shelter has been installed and services commenced operating from there in late January. All bus services to and from Hastings have been entering Eastbourne Street via St Aubyn Street and Hastings Street since the new timetable commenced in late September, in anticipation of this move. This was necessary to ensure that the buses would come in on the correct side of the street for the new terminus location.

SuperGold Card Scheme Update

11. Changes have been made to the funding of the SuperGold scheme that provides free off-peak bus travel for people with a SuperGold card. The Minister of Transport announced that from 2016-17, funding for this scheme would be capped. Regional allocations were to be adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index but there was to be no funding for growth in the number of users of the scheme or in the number of trips taken.

12. Regional Councils from the areas where SuperGold card use is growing significantly had some significant concerns about the possibility that this capped bulk funding approach would transfer the cost to ratepayers.

13. Therefore, the Ministry of Transport and the Transport Agency set up a collaborative approach with Local Government New Zealand to ensure an equitable implementation of the planned changes. Key to this was the continuation of access to the service for SuperGold cardholders and avoiding the transfer of risk and cost to ratepayers.

14. Methods for the future distribution of the capped SuperGold fund are still under discussion among the stakeholder groups set up to advise on this issue. An interim agreement was signed for the 2016-17 year and it is likely that a further interim agreement will be needed for 2017-18, before this issue is finally resolved for future years.

15. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council SuperGold patronage and revenue is at 65% of budget for 66% of the year gone.

Bus Ticketing System

16. In 2013, a consortium of nine regional councils was formed to jointly procure a replacement bus ticketing system for aging systems nearing the end of their technological life.

17. The system is intended as an interim solution for the nine councils for at least five years, until a national integrated ticketing system is developed for all regional councils, including the large metropolitan councils.

18. The interim system will include tag-on, tag-off functionality, online bus card top-ups, improved reporting capability and enhanced revenue security.

19. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council approved the inclusion of funds in the 2015-18 Long Term Plan for its share of the upgraded system. The NZ Transport Agency has agreed to subsidise the cost of the system at an increased financial assistance rate.

20. The procurement process is almost complete and a formal announcement is expected soon. It is anticipated that the new system will be installed in all the consortium regions during 2017-18.

Total Mobility

21. The following tables compare the number of Total Mobility trips and costs during the first seven months of 2012-13 to 2016-17.

22. After a decrease in the use and cost of Total Mobility last year, trips are again increasing and the cost of the scheme has risen back to 2014-15 levels.

Table 6 – Total Mobility Trips – Seven months to 31 January 2012-13 to 2016-17

Table 7 – Total Mobility Cost (ex GST) – Seven months to 31 January 2012-13 to 2016-17

(60% of this cost is met by the New Zealand Transport Agency)

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “March 2017 Public Transport Update” report.

Authored by:

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 March 2017

Subject: Electric Vehicles

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an overview of work being undertaken in terms of Electric Vehicle (EV) uptake and broadly outlines Council’s approach.

2. There is an increasing move from central government to encourage greater uptake of electric vehicle usage nationally. This coincides with growing interest in Hawke’s Bay, from businesses, local authorities, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), tangata whenua and others, in breaking down barriers to their uptake in the region.

3. Electric vehicles are charged from an external electricity source, and are powered either solely by electric batteries, or through a combination of electric batteries and a combination of petrol and/or diesel (i.e. hybrid).

Background

4. The Long Term Plan (LTP) for 2015-2018 set out the direction of HBRC for the next 10 years, including the “Big Six’: the six most important issues arising from public consultation on the draft plan. One common theme that arose was a changing energy future for the region, which prompted an LTP action for the development of an energy strategy for Hawke’s Bay.

5. A preliminary meeting of potentially interested businesses, NGOs, individuals, and representatives from the public sector was convened by Council in May 2015. At this meeting a range of themes and issues were discussed regarding Hawke’s Bay’s energy future, and ways in which a strategy could be progressed. Due to resourcing constraints, this work was placed into hiatus before being picked up again in mid-2016.

6. A further workshop was convened on 30 August 2016, with representatives from NGOs, businesses, tangata whenua, the electricity sector, and the public sector. This workshop aimed to identify several key areas of focus that the group could progress. Greater usage and uptake of Electric Vehicles in Hawke’s Bay was identified as one such area.

Work by Unison

7. In addition to the above, staff have been in discussion with local consumer-owned lines company Unison. Unison is increasingly focusing on promoting electric vehicle usage in the region by converting their corporate fleet, as well as driving the introduction of charging stations in the central North Island.

8. In December 2016 Unison was granted funding from the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority’s (EECA) Electric vehicles contestable fund, for the funding of two fast charging stations for electric vehicles to create the Electric Thermal Explorer Highway route between Taupo and Napier. This project is expected to remove a barrier to EV uptake in the Central North Island due to limited vehicle range and the lack of infrastructure between Napier and Taupo.

9. A second funding round, with up to $6 Million available, is likely to open for applications in the next month or two.

Electric Vehicles workshop

10. On 25 November 2016, a workshop was co-hosted by Unison and HBRC, with a range of invitees including local councils, EV owners, NGOs, tangata whenua, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB), EV retailers and other organisations.

11. The purpose of the workshop was to inform and educate, dispel myths about electric vehicles, and gauge the enthusiasm of attendees about progressing uptake initiatives as a collective.

12. After substantial discussion, attendees were keen to progress several initiatives. Firstly, there was desire to see alignment of resources and strategy between HBRC and other local authorities that will make Hawke’s Bay more’ EV friendly’. There was also widespread consensus in support of the group being reconvened at a later stage to discuss progress with initiatives outside of the group.

13. Staff have since been advised by attendees that because of connections formed at the workshop, further networking and partnerships have resulted.

The potential role of HBRC in the future

14. It was clear from the workshop and subsequent discussions that there is strong interest in this area from attendees and a rapidly growing level of activity, and there appears to be value in HBRC continuing to foster this momentum. It is noted that the bearing HBRC can have on energy initiatives directly is limited, but our indirect ability to influence, connect and enable is much more defined. The EV promotional space is becoming more crowded over time and HBRC will need to continue to evaluate whether it is adding value to this landscape and how this sits alongside relative priorities for council resources.

15. Issues related to energy supply and demand is indirectly relevant to Council’s priorities in the areas of public transport, cycle ways, as well as our broader interest in economic development and tourism. However, we have no easily developed direct regulatory or funding ‘levers’, but can channel resources into continuing to support and foster these discussions.

16. One tangible way in which we can provide a space for such discussions is through the possible development of a web portal (a ‘virtual EV showroom’), attached to the HBRC website, which would provide interested individuals and companies with centralised repository of information about EVs.

17. HBRC currently has two hybrid petrol/electric vehicles in its fleet and intends looking at the costs and benefits of replacing these with plug in electric vehicles when they are due for replacement. Owing to the range and off road requirements of the majority of HBRC’s fleet current EV market offerings do not meet the Council’s requirements in most circumstances.

18. HBRC funds a regional public transport bus network through third party contracts. It is anticipated that as technology develops and electric buses become economically viable in the future HBRC will have the option of incentivising or requiring uptake of such vehicles as part of its contracting for these services.

19. There are also ongoing opportunities to work with Unison to support and bolster future funding applications, including looking at basing a charging station on HBRC property.

20. Staff will continue to engage with regional stakeholders on the development of EVs, including through periodically convening a regional forum, and will provide advice to the Committee in due course of any proposed new initiatives for HBRC to undertake. In the first instance staff will test the value of providing a promotional web portal, as mentioned in paragraph 16, with key stakeholders. Staff will also hold discussion with Unison about collaborative infrastructure opportunities for the upcoming central government funding round.

Decision Making Process

21. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision-making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Electric Vehicles” staff report.

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.