Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Transforming Biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay

Reason for Report

1. To discuss how Council integrates activities across a range of natural resource management functions to deliver transformational outcomes for the community. Biodiversity is used as an example of how this integration can take place to drive transformational change by combining:

1.1. Existing policy and statutory drivers like freshwater plan changes driven by the National Policy for Freshwater Management, Regional Biodiversity Strategy and Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP).

1.2. Councils broader business as usual activities that act at scale such as science and monitoring, biosecurity, land management, and asset flood protection and drainage programmes

1.3. Strategic projects on key leverage points such as predator pest management and habitat restoration that help provide impact at a regional scale.

1.4. Alignment to significant national initiatives like Predator Free New Zealand 2050.

2. This is the first in a series of three linked agenda items and discusses the strategic and leveraged funding context for habitat restoration and regional predator management. It considers the potential for Hawke’s Bay to declare itself as the first region to align to the aspirational Predator Free 2050 goal.

3. The next agenda item “Regional Pest Management Plan Review (RPMP) update and discussion document” considers the broader upcoming RPMP review and biosecurity context. It also discusses the statutory, policy and community context for how the RPMP provides the framework for regional predator control.

4. The final item “Biosecurity 2017-18 Operational Plans” completes the potential link from strategic context to operational delivery, discussing the broader operational plan context and the role of the operational plan in the on ground delivery of any future commitment to regional predator control rollout.

Biodiversity decline

5. Despite significant efforts from agencies, individuals and communities, biodiversity is in decline across New Zealand. Hawke’s Bay is no exception to this. While restoring biodiversity is a complex topic there are two significant strategic levers for transformational change for terrestrial biodiversity. The first is the removal of a suite of predator pests (possums, feral cats, mustelids and rats) and the second is increasing habitat (mainly tree crops) and habitat connectivity across the environment. Both of these strategic levers deliver multiple outcome benefits for the community and that makes their value proposition stronger.

Habitat restoration – The foundation to multiple outcomes

6. Habitat restoration is the foundation to the delivery of a range of outcomes such as:

6.1. Reduced erosion risk and reduced sediment reaching waterways

6.2. Reduced nutrient levels in waterways

6.3. Biodiversity benefits to birds, invertebrates and lizards (including increased habitat, and linkages between habitat areas)

6.4. Improved water quality

6.5. Increased economic return from marginal land.

7. New Zealand is at a turning point for habitat restoration. A substantial part of the solution to the significant nutrient and sediment related land and water challenges we face requires the massive upscaling of planting the right trees in the right places in NZ landscapes.

8. In addition, to capture the full benefits for the native species that will thrive from a successful Predator Free NZ 2050 will require “corridors” or habitat for native species to colonise which is connected across the landscape. Finally the right trees in the right places will drive a substantially better economic outcome for areas of our farmland and in particular our hill country. Habitat restoration - the right trees in the right places is fundamental to success across a number of NZ’s greatest challenges in our current land, water and biodiversity context.

Integrating habitat restoration delivery into the strategic and policy framework

9. It is critical that any large habitat restoration programme integrates activity into existing statutory and policy frameworks such as:

9.1. Regional Resource Management Plan changes and their implementation.

9.2. East Coast Hill Country Resilience Framework.

9.3. Regional Biodiversity Strategy.

9.4. Regional Pest Management Plan.

9.5. Flood Control and Drainage Scheme asset management plans.

10. That is because these processes build the social, policy and science context as to where resources should be directed for desired outcomes impact. They may also include regional scale mechanisms such as farm planning which can be effective tools for integrating multiple activities on farm towards outcomes.

Balancing commercial and non commercial outcomes

11. Any large scale habitat restoration fund needs to balance return on investment (to grow the fund) with driving the social, cultural and environmental outcomes sought by the community. Purely commercial drivers for habitat restoration projects are unlikely to deliver community outcomes impact at a level that more balanced commercial / non commercial objectives do.

The level of integration to drive outcomes success varies across programmes

12. HBRC has a wide and varied role across NRM functions and it is unrealistic to expect a high degree of integrated activity across all these functions. For many activities the complexity and cost in achieving a high level of integration would outweigh the overall benefits of doing so.

13. However, some activities undertaken by HBRC are key strategic levers for delivering multiple outcomes and require a higher level of programme integration within HBRC. Habitat restoration is one of these.

Integrating strategic projects into Councils operational activity.

14. There are essentially three levels to successfully doing this:

14.1. A strategic projects operational delivery to a site needs to be substantially targeted by community driven statutory and policy frameworks like those above.

14.2. A formal budgeted cross functional council project team structure is necessary for regional scale strategic projects like habitat restoration. To be successful these require a high level of integration across Council for outcomes success.

15. For projects that require less on ground integration but collectively build to the overall vision we should be actively resourcing communications. We should also be proactively communicating the scope of our activity and the integrated outcomes including the big picture that activity is directed towards.

16. In addition there needs to be a communication process to “sell” the concept to both urban and rural communities, without over promising as the programme will take a number of years before there is any demonstrable outcomes.

Predator pest management – The Pathway to Predator Free Hawke’s Bay?

17. If the impacts of possums, feral cats, mustelid’s and rats could be substantially reduced across much or all of the Hawke’s Bay region there would be multiple positive benefits including those for biodiversity. As a strategic lever it is important because predator pest management can deliver:

17.1. Economic benefits through reduced risk of diseases such as TB and toxoplasmosis, pasture and amenity damage.

17.2. Environmental benefits through native bird, lizard, invertebrate and flora recovery.

17.3. Human health benefits through improved water quality, reduced disease impact such as toxoplasmosis, and greater opportunities to engage with the environment.

17.4. Cultural benefits through increased mana, mauri and expression of kaitiakitanga.

Wide scale predator control

18. Over the last 15 years council has successfully delivered its flagship regional Possum Control Area Programme. This programme’s success and its associated low possum numbers across most of the region is the foundation to undertake the transition to wide scale predator control of possums, feral cats and mustelid’s with targeted rat control. Since 2011 through the Poutiri ao o Tane and now Cape to City projects Council have been researching and trialing a range of technology and techniques to roll predator control out across large areas of the region with a focus on increasing effectiveness and reducing costs.

19. Staff now believe that:

19.1. Low cost predator control is likely to be technically achievable in the next three to four years using tools such as wireless trap monitoring.

19.2. Processes such as the regional pest management plan review should be aligned to provide the mechanism for the community to transition possum control areas to predator control areas should our community wish to do so.

19.3. There is a funding model for delivery that may potentially be attractive to central government, philanthropic and business investment.

20. Predator control when combined with an effective layer of habitat restoration to deliver land and water outcomes could over time provide a transformational benefit to regional biodiversity.

Philanthropic investment in New Zealand

21. Philanthropic investment is increasing in New Zealand and initiatives such as the Predator Free NZ 2050 (PFNZ 2050) vision may strengthen that trend. HBRC has been fortunate through its partnership in the Cape to City project to begin building good relationships with some philanthropic providers. Our experience is that philanthropic funders invest after a rigorous process for leverage and impact to “change the game”. They do not usually invest in business as usual initiatives, and they are more likely to invest where they are satisfied that appropriate arrangements are in place that effectively secure any “capital” investment. HBRC’s area of core business in natural resource management is an area of strong interest for them.

22. A high impact transformational investment to deliver regional scale initial knock down of predators may be of interest to philanthropic or business investors. To be transformational the investment needs to be secured long term by a community commitment underpinned by the Regional Pest Management Plan and/or the Regional Resource Management Plan to keep pest numbers low. It could also act as a template for investment in farmland predator pest management for the rest of New Zealand.

Predator Free Hawke’s Bay

23. A number of towns or cities across New Zealand have declared the goal of predator free in line with the national Predator Free 2050 vision. Hawke’s Bay as a region could choose to be the first region to set an aspirational goal of being predator free by 2050. Staff are seeking discussion by Councillors and guidance as to whether aligning the Hawke’s Bay region with the Predator Free 2050 vision is supported. With Council approval staff would seek community feedback on the vision of Hawke’s Bay Predator Free 2050 in the Regional Pest Management Plan discussion document. Delivering the pathway to achieve the vision could start in the 2018 -2028 Long Term Plan period.

Funding predator pest management within the Hawke’s Bay region

24. How we might fund regional roll out of predator control is a key challenge. While HBRC has an opportunity for a potential partnership including business, philanthropic partners and PFNZ 2050 - it will also need to provide resource for any regional predator control projects. Staff propose that for the 17-18 financial year existing biosecurity budgets that are largely currently available for predator control related activities are prioritised towards developing more strategic regional predator control projects. Any additional resources for predator control beyond existing biosecurity budgets would need to be considered with the LTP alongside other Council priorities.

Financial and Resource Implications

Funding

25. From a funding perspective, Predator Free 2050 has a 1:2 funding ratio. That is for each dollar they fund they expect other partners to fund two dollars. They fund possum, mustelid and rat control. The table below outlines biosecurity funding that can potentially be allocated to a partnership to deliver some key goals in Cape to City and in particular considering how we start the wider regional roll out of predator control under a Hawke’s Bay Predator Free vision.

	2017-18
LTP 2015-25 budgeted – C2C\regional roll out	250,000
Biosecurity reserves	30,000
Biosecurity base budgets	175,000
HBRC funds	455,000

26. In proposing this approach staff note:

26.1. PFNZ 2050 is currently appointing a Chief Executive and in the near future are likely to be open for a discussion on funding regional predator control projects. While the broad funding criteria is understood the detail is yet to be developed by PFNZ 2050 and that detail may influence the nature of regional predator control projects supported by them.

26.2. This funding allocation does not impact the delivery of the biosecurity section outcomes because this money is still directed to its core purpose. These base biosecurity budgets are committed annually to deliver specific programmes and outcomes on behalf of the community. Many of these outcomes are predator control related across operational delivery, research, community engagement and biodiversity or economic outcomes. The proposed change is that 80% of the predator control funding is re directed from separate individual land owner initiatives to largescale strategic rollout of regional predator control directed towards the PFNZ 2050 vision.

26.3. Staff have taken a relatively risk averse approach to how we might fund regional predator control rollout. This approach allocates less than 30% of that total base biosecurity budget to predator control. Some funding is still available for small individual land owner predator control initiatives.

26.4. Potential initial areas that could be explored for regional predator control rollout include Mahia, Whakaki, Poutiri ao o Tane, Ahuriri Estuary, Lake Whatuma, and Adean’s Bush in Central Hawke’s Bay. Four of these are amongst the current identified hot spots for land and water challenges within the region.

Conclusion - Delivering integrated outcomes

27. Council has the opportunity through how it resources and integrates its natural resource management role to drive transformational outcomes for its community. One example of this would be for regional biodiversity through the strategic levers of regional scale predator pest management and habitat restoration. How it does this can be integrated with existing strategic and policy frameworks and cross functional operational delivery to drive the change our community requires.

Decision Making Process

28. 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:

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

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

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

28.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers within the region with an interest in biosecurity and biodiversity activities

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

28.6. 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 “Transforming Biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay” 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. Endorses the principle of Hawke’s Bay being the first region to align itself to the Predator Free NZ 2050 goal.

2.3. Requests that staff seek community feedback on this aspirational goal through the Regional Pest Management Plan review and discussion document

2.4. Requests that staff bring a detailed proposal for consideration to Council through the 2018-28 Long Term Plan development process, discussing the regional rollout of predator control alongside associated leveraged funding partners.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Regional Pest Management Plan Review and Discussion Document

Reason for Report

1. To update Council on progress on the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) review and present the RPMP working group terms of reference, Attachment 1, and discussion document, Attachment 2, for comment and adoption.

Regional Pest Management Plan Working Party

2. Council agreed a working party of three councillors and three Maori representatives to provide advice on the RPMP as it is developed over the next 12 months. The draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for that working group is modelled on the committee TOR and is Attachment 1 for comment and adoption.

3. This group had its first meeting in March with Councillors Belford, Graham and Wilson as the elected representatives. Agreed representatives from the Regional Planning Committee were initially Roger Maaka, Allen Smith and Karauna Brown however both Roger Maaka and Allen Smith have been replaced on the Regional Planning Committee and as a result replacements are being sought to participate in the in the RPMP working group.

Discussion document

4. There are three key consultation stages during the RPMP process. The first is seeking community feedback on the key issues to be included in the RPMP with the release of a discussion document in June 2017. The second is the release of the RPMP proposal in early 2018. The final stage is the sealing of the RPMP by Council in June 2018.

5. The RPMP discussion document, Attachment 2, for release in June will seek feedback from the community on a range of issues including regional goat management, marine biosecurity, regional rollout of predator control, and changes to managing Chilean needle grass. Staff seek feedback on the draft RPMP discussion document attached.

6. A range of other aspects related to the RPMP process including cost benefit analysis, early engagement with key stakeholders, and additional analysis of the key issues are under way.

Financial and Resource Implications

7. There are no financial or resource implications associated with this phase of the RPMP review. Through the discussion document and RPMP proposal the financial or resource implications will be clarified and aligned to the Annual Plan and\or Long Term Plan budgeting process.

Decision Making Process

8. 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:

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. The persons affected by this decision are those with an interest in regional biosecurity and biodiversity related activities.

8.5. Options that have been considered include ceasing to have a Regional Pest Management Plan.

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:

1.1. Receives and notes the “Regional Pest Management Plan Review and Discussion Document” staff report.

1.2. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Biosecurity Working Group, with agreed amendments incorporated.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Confirms the Terms of Reference for the “Biosecurity Working Party” incorporating amendments agreed at the Environment and Services Committee meeting on 17 May 2017.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mark Mitchell

Principal Biosecurity Officer

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1	Draft Terms of Reference
⇨2	Discussion Document		Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Biosecurity 2017-18 Operational Plan

Reason for Report

1. Council is the management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Pest Management Plan – RPMP) and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan (RPPMP). Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that the management agency for a pest management plan prepare and review the operational plan for each Plan annually. Operational Plans have been prepared for both the RPMP and RPPMP and are attached to this paper for Committee reference and 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 2016-17 plans are proposed for 2017-18.

3. The HBRC Regional Pest Management Plan review is proposed to begin in mid-2017. Staff will be initiating that process with a discussion document within the next two months. Other preparatory work including stakeholder discussions, cost benefit analysis, and framing up key issues is also underway. The RPMP working group with three councillor and three māori reps has had its first meeting.

4. This agenda item seeks Council adoption of the 2017-18 operational plans. Key RPMP work programmes included in the 2017-18 operational plan are:

5. The control of possums within urban areas. This programme is proving to be very successful with Bellbird numbers trebling and Tui quadrupling within the urban areas monitored.

6. The implementation of stage two of the Cape to City wide scale predator control has begun. Already there are some clear transformational opportunities for predator pest management within the region arising from the project. Should regional rollout of predator control proceed the animal pest operational plan will describe the methods, targets and performance measures for regional delivery.

7. The transition of approximately 15,000ha of TBFree New Zealand possum control vector management areas to ongoing maintenance under HBRC’s Possum Control Area programme.

8. Attachments 1 and 2 are the 2017-18 Pest Management Operational Plans.

9. There is no requirement for Council to undertake any activities under the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan, and no changes are proposed to this operational plan (Attachment 3).

Financial and Resource Implications

10. There are no additional financial or resource implications as a result of the proposed Operational Plans. The financial implications of regional predator control rollout opportunities arising from 2017-18 Cape to City operational plan activities are discussed in the separate agenda item “Transforming Biodiversity within Hawkes Bay”.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

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

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

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in biosecurity and biodiversity activities within the region.

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

11.6. 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 and notes the “Biosecurity 2017-18 Operational Plan” staff report.

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee 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.

3. Accepts the Biosecurity 2017-18 Operational Plans as the basis for HBRC Biosecurity Operations through the 2017-18 financial year.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	Animal Pest Operational Plan 2017-18	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Plant Pest Operational Plan 2017-18	Under Separate Cover
⇨3	Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2017-18	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Processing of Water Bottling Resource Consent Applications

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the processing of resource consent applications to take water for Water Bottling.

Background

2. In December 2016 Council resolved that resource consent applications for taking water for water bottling purposes should be publicly notified under special circumstances. The resolution read:

Resolution

That Council:

2. Notes that staff are proposing four options for Council to deliberate on in terms of how applications for water bottling takes might be processed in future and instructs staff to:

2.1 Adopt a Council policy position that all takes for water bottling trigger special circumstances and therefore should be publicly notified by staff.

3. For clarity, water bottling is defined as “taking and using water for bottling in bottles, bladders or other containers for human consumption where bore water makes up at least 90% of the content of the container”.

3. Since this decision, no applications for water bottling purposes have been received. Staff have, however, received a number of enquiries and have been advising that an application to take water for water bottling purposes will require public notification; giving rise to the need for further clarification for staff to respond to queries.

Does the decision apply to surface water?

4. In December the only consented water bottling takes were from groundwater sources. While the resolution applies to all takes for water bottling, the definition of water bottling refers to “bore water” indicating a groundwater source.

5. There has been a recent enquiry to take from a free flowing spring for bottling. Staff understand Council’s intent was likely to include surface water sources and ask that this be clarified through amendment of the definition by removing the reference to “bore”.

Does the decision apply to existing consented takes?

6. A legally established existing consent can have a number of subsequent consenting actions, such as a:

7.1 Change in owner in part or full (transfer)

7.2 Change of consent conditions (both minor and major)

7.3 Transfer in part or in full, from site to site

7.4 Delegations to consider extension of lapse dates.

7. S136 (2)(a) allows for a transfer from an existing holder to a new owner or occupier of the site. This is procedural and providing written notice is given by the consent holder, the Council must transfer the consent to the new holder, with the same conditions as the previous consent and without further process. The consent is re-issued in the new legal entity’s name and is deemed to be a ‘New Consent’. There is no approval step in this process so the special circumstances notification assessment cannot be invoked.

8. S127 allows for a consent holder to request changes to the consent conditions; which may be as minor as updating the property legal description after a subdivision, or as major as increasing the volume or rate of take. If someone proposes to change an existing water bottling condition or where someone proposes to add water bottling as a purpose to an existing consent, the special circumstances notification assessment can be invoked in the process and staff seek clarification on what type or size of change should trigger notification.

9. S136(2)(b) allows for a consent holder to apply to have the consent transferred from site to site, either in whole or part, and the special circumstances notification assessment can be invoked in this process. Staff are seeking clarification of whether a transfer of a take for water bottling use from one site to another should require notification under special circumstances, or whether there is a limit or cut-off that should be set between non-notification and notification options in this situation.

10. S125 allows for a consent holder to apply to have the lapse date on an unexercised consent extended. A lapse date can be thought of as a “use it or lose it” date. If the consented activity has not been exercised by the lapse date, the consent lapses unless the consent holder applies for an extension of the date and demonstrates they are making significant progress towards giving effect to it. Currently 3 out of 11 consents that include water bottling use have not yet been exercised. Should these consent holders apply to extend the lapse date, there is no notification step in the process so the special circumstances notification cannot be invoked. Lapse date extension decisions are currently delegated to staff, with the exception of takes in catchments that are fully allocated or identified as sensitive groundwater zones. In these catchments, applications would be considered by Council. Under the Hearings Committee (HC) Terms of Reference, the HC is delegated to hear any objections to staff decisions on lapse date extensions but is not delegated to consider the initial lapse date extension applications. If Council wishes to delegate the ability to consider lapse date extensions (for any activity) to the Hearing Committee the HC Terms of Reference can be amended accordingly.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA

11.5. Options that have been considered include do nothing.

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

11.7. 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 “Processing of Water Bottling Resource Consent Applications“ staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Provides clarification of the Council policy position on the taking of water for water bottling by:

2.2.1. Removing the word “bore” from the definition of water bottling; thereby including applications to take surface water for water bottling

2.2.2. Amending the Hearings Committee Terms of Reference to include delegation to hear and decide lapse date extension applications

2.2.3. Change of consent conditions (what is minor and what is major to justify notification?)

2.2.4. Transfer in part or in full, from site to site (when does this justify notification?)

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

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 17 May 2017

Subject: OECD Environmental Performance Review and Public Perception Survey of NZ’s Environment 2016

Reason for Report

1. Two recently released reports provide commentary on the management of natural resources and the environment in New Zealand. Given the role of the Council, and the Regional Planning Committee in particular, in managing and protecting the environment in Hawke’s Bay, a summary of the key findings of these reports is provided for the Committee’s information.

2. The first of these two reports, released on 17 February 2017, and entitled Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment: 2016, is produced by Lincoln University and is based on a biennial survey of New Zealanders that has been running since 2000.

3. The second report, produced by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), summarises the findings of an independent review of the performance of New Zealand’s environmental management system that is undertaken approximately every 10 years.

Public Perceptions of New Zealand’s Environment: 2016

4. Since 2000 a team of researchers at Lincoln University has been undertaking a survey every two years of public perceptions to provide insights into the level of understanding among the general public of the current state of, and pressures on, the natural environment. The survey also provides data on perceptions of the adequacy of management responses to these issues.

5. The most recent survey in 2016, the eighth in the series, has been led by Professors Ken Hughey, Geoff Kerr and Ross Cullen. For the last three surveys the approach has been to use online surveying, as opposed to written postal surveys used previously, and as a consequence of this change in methodology trends dating back to the early 2000s need to be treated with some caution.

6. The 2016 survey sample was drawn from 7000 volunteers held on the database of a market research firm and in the 2016 survey a total of 2468 responses were received giving a margin of error of 3% at the 95% confidence level. When compared to 2013 Census data the sample has some bias, which is discussed further below in paragraph 9.

7. Overall themes suggest New Zealanders consider themselves to be increasingly informed about environmental issues and perceive the environment to be in worse shape than was the case in the early 2000s. There are increasing perceptions of poor management of a number of key natural resources, particularly freshwater and marine, and unsurprisingly the effects of farming and farm-runoff are cited as a top issue for water quality. Māori have more negative perceptions of the state of the New Zealand environment and are far more likely to report participation in ‘pro-environment behaviour’ than are NZ Europeans or those of other ethnicities.

8. Key findings from the survey of note for the committee include:

8.1. Since 2000 there has been an increase in the number of people who consider they have a “very good” (6.5% in 2000 and 11.1% in 2016) or “good” (29.4% in 2000 and 32.6% in 2016) knowledge of environmental issues, and a corresponding decline in the number of people who considered they only had “adequate”, “bad” or “very bad” knowledge (62.4% combined in 2000 and 54.8% in 2016).

8.2. Since 2004 there has been a steady decline in the number of people who consider the “standard of living in New Zealand” to be “very” or “good” (72.5% combined in 2004 to 53.3% in 2016) and a corresponding increase in the number of people who considered it to be “bad” or “very bad” (3.1% combined in 2004 to 11.7% in 2016).

8.3. Perceptions of the overall state of the natural environment in New Zealand have fallen from “very” or “good” (58.3% combined in 2006 to 37.1% in 2016) and a corresponding increase in the number of people who considered it to be “bad” or “very bad” (6.9% combined in 2004 to 24.7% in 2016).

8.4. In 2016 “water” was cited as the most important environmental issue facing New Zealand (31.1% of respondents), with agriculture related issues cited by 9.9%. Greenhouse gases, climate change and ozone were cited most frequently as the biggest environmental issues facing the world (33.5%).

8.5. Rivers and lakes are perceived to be in the worst state, with 45.4% of respondents considering them to be in a “bad” or “very bad” state. This is a marked shift from 2004 when only 23.6% considered this to be the case. Air quality is perceived to be in the best state with only 8.1% considering it to be “bad” or “very bad”.

8.6. Of the natural resource management practices surveyed “farm effluent and runoff” was perceived most negatively with 65.5% of respondents considering this to be managed “badly” or “very badly”. 59% of respondents consider farming to be one of three biggest sources of damage to freshwater, followed by sewage and stormwater cited by 43.5% of respondents.

8.7. The management of rivers and lakes was perceived to be poor or very poor by 47.2% of respondents, which is well up from a low in 2008 of 20.9%. Correspondingly only 16.5% of respondents consider rivers and lakes to be well or very well managed. There is slightly less concern evident with the management of groundwater with 32.4% of respondents stating they felt this area is poorly or very poorly managed and 16.4% of respondents consider groundwater to be well or very well managed.

8.8. Marine fisheries are also cited as an area of management concern with 35.2% of respondents in 2016 perceiving these to be poorly or very poorly managed. This figure had been as low as 18.3% in 2008. 78% of respondents cited commercial fishing as being one of the three biggest sources of damage to marine fisheries.

8.9. There appears to be increasing concern about the management of soils with those considering these to be poorly or very poorly managed rising from 17.1% in 2000 to 29.4% in 2016. 48% of respondents considered farming to be one the three biggest causes of damage to soil.

8.10. Actions taken by individuals such as making submissions, recycling, buying environmentally friendly products etc. has remained broadly consistent over the 8 surveys. However, participation in environmental organisations has hit an all-time high at 20.1% “in the last year” and 4.8% “regularly”.

9. When comparing the survey sample to the whole of population data of the 2013 Census the survey group there are some differences that may affect the data. Women, older people, middle-income earners and people with university qualifications appear to be over-represented. This likely reflects the demographics of the volunteers that are weighted toward retired people and less likely to involve lower income workers. Notably the urban/rural split was representative, although respondents from Wellington were over-represented and from Auckland under-represented. The full survey can be read at: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/Documents/LEaP/perceptions2016_feb17_LowRes.pdf

OCED Environmental Performance Review

10. The OECD, based in Paris, is a member-based organisation, to which New Zealand belongs, that promotes the sharing of policies and mutual-cooperation for economic, social and sustainable development. The OECD includes an Environment Directorate which promotes debate and policy development on environment-related matters. This directorate is headed by former New Zealand Environment Minister, the Rt Hon Simon Upton, who is soon to take up the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment back here in New Zealand. In the last year New Zealand held the chair of the Environmental Policy Committee of the OECD. Prior to joining HBRC, the Council’s Group Manager Strategic Development was responsible for New Zealand’s involvement in the OECD Environmental Policy Committee and in the performance review commented on below.

11. The OECD attempts to develop and promote best practice in public policy and public management practice. Every year it conducts reviews on aspects of the public policy and performance of public institutions of its member countries across economic, social and environmental matters. New Zealand has previously been reviewed by the OECD for its environmental performance in 1996 and 2007.

12. The OECD states that “New Zealand’s growth model is approaching its environmental limits. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are increasing. Pollution of freshwater is spreading over a wider area. And the country’s biodiversity is under threat.” As such the review has focussed on particular topic areas of ‘green growth’, water resources management and urban development.

13. Opportunities for New Zealand cited by the OECD include:

13.1. an international reputation as a green and clean country

13.2. an advanced and comprehensive natural resource management system

13.3. a long tradition of public participation in decision making

13.4. a well-developed research and innovation system with competitive advantage in several environmental technologies

13.5. a low-carbon energy mix with 80% of power generated from renewables

13.6. a major reform of national freshwater policy to safeguard water quality and availability

13.7. a major reform of governance for Auckland, the largest city.

14. Challenges for New Zealand cited by the OECD include:

14.1. the largest share of GHG emissions from agriculture in the OECD

14.2. a transport system highly dependent on roads and in need of coherent taxes

14.3. local governments lacking national guidance in many environmental policy areas and struggling with insufficient resources

14.4. rising freshwater pollution and scarcity in some regions

14.5. complex urban planning that makes it difficult to reduce pressure on land use, housing and infrastructure from population growth.

15. On climate change the OECD notes that New Zealand remains among the ten most energy-intensive OECD economies and New Zealand’s car ownership rate is the highest in the OECD. Further, it is noted that the fleet is relatively old and inefficient. Work by the Council’s Regional Transport Committee to promote public transport, cycling and efficient transport networks all play an important part in managing these pressures. Current work exploring the role of the Council in promoting electric vehicles may play a further part.

16. The OECD notes that the Emissions Trading Scheme currently excludes biological emissions from agriculture and states that, “pricing or regulations are needed to curb these emissions”. Greenhouse gas mitigation (reduction) is primarily the purview of central government under the Climate Change Response Act. However, afforestation of erosion prone land within the region can play a useful role in offsetting on-farm GHG emissions with co-benefits for water quality. Re-consideration of the previous ‘Trees for Farms’ carbon funding mechanism, or a similar concept, as part of the upcoming 2018-2028 Long Term Plan is proposed by staff.

17. Freshwater reforms are likely to constrain the growth in animal-based agriculture in most places and in some areas reductions in the current extent of animal agriculture may be required. Rules within the Regional Resource Management Plan to control land use for water quality outcomes are likely to tilt incentives for land use away from intensive animal-based farming to land use with lower greenhouse gas footprints. Therefore, there are some synergies between the land and water regulatory reform programme the Council is currently pursuing and lower greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. The Council should be mindful that pricing or regulatory controls of farm greenhouse gas emissions by central government could come on top of significant increases in farm costs to meet water management requirements.

18. The OECD note that local authorities are required to consider the effects of climate change in their decisions, but consider that “many struggle to plan effectively”. They go on to say that the “first vulnerability assessments have yet to be translated into sectoral adaptation strategies”. The Hawke’s Bay Coastal Hazards Strategy currently under development is an example of where the assessments have been undertaken but the adaptation strategy is still a work in progress. Hawke’s Bay is at the leading edge of this nationally and moving ahead in a timely manner, albeit with the more difficult decisions for the community lying ahead. Climate change impacts are already considered in the water planning work of the Council.

19. The OECD notes that air quality in New Zealand “is generally good”. However, emissions from road transport have steadily risen since 2000 and we do not compare favourably on a per capita basis. Our winter pollution from home heating remains an issue, including in Hawke’s Bay, and is a work in progress with air quality limits currently being exceeded in the Hastings area during winter. The National Environment Standard on Air Quality is scheduled for review in the coming year and this may well necessitate further changes to the Council’s approach to managing air quality in the region.

20. Unsurprisingly water management was a major topic focus for the review. Co-governance with tangata whenua and collaborative approaches to planning were highlighted as important innovations in water management. In light of the Regional Planning Committee and the TANK Plan Change, Hawkes Bay can be considered to be at the more progressive end of these approaches nationally.

21. The OECD suggests expansion in “the use of economic instruments to internalise environmental and opportunity costs, promote innovation and encourage efficient use of water.” While there are legislative constraints to the economic instruments the Council can use to incentivise better water management the recent ‘efficiency review’ conducted by the Acting Chief Executive has highlighted the scope to review current charges for water use to alter the balance between ratepayers and water users in funding water management.

22. The OECD is critical of regional councils for being “slow to put the freshwater management policy into action” and identify the need to “Increase financial support and capacity for regional councils to deliver on the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. The Council has increased its resources and internal capability for freshwater reform significantly in recent years and the proposed increase in funding for water management hot spots through the 2017/18 Annual Plan continues to build on this. Determining the scale and nature of resources required for effective NPSFM implementation over the longer-term is a key priority for the upcoming 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

23. The OECD notes New Zealand has very high volumes of freshwater abstracted from irrigation on a per capita basis. This is not surprising given our comparatively low population and high dependence on agriculture for exports. A more useful comparison would be irrigation volumes proportionate to farm output if a measure of our efficiency of use was being considered. The OECD recommend that central government reviews its “support for irrigation to ensure funding is only provided for projects that would not proceed otherwise, and that have community wide benefits.” The recent review of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme has highlighted the necessity of the public investment in the scheme’s early years to enable the scheme to become established, and also highlighted the importance of ensuring the scheme delivers a net improvement in environmental outcomes. To this extent the Council’s approach to supporting irrigation development is consistent with the approach suggested by the OECD.

24. The OECD recommends the development of a “whole-of-government long-term strategy to increase the added value of export products within climate and freshwater quality and quantity objectives.” As part of the Council’s intended contribution to the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy the Council has proposed leadership of the following actions:

· 5.4 Work with primary producers to ensure productivity gains deliver the improved environmental performance required for freshwater reform; and

· 5.5 Support natural resource users to identify and proactively manage business risks and opportunities arising from a changing climate.

Pilot work is currently underway in the Whakaki catchment on action 5.4 and an initial stock-take project is underway to inform action 5.5. However, considerably more work needs to be undertaken on the opportunities that exist for the Council in driving better economic outcomes from the way in which land, water and climate are managed. This analysis is a priority for this year and will form part of the advice to the Council on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

25. A key element of the Council’s Strategic Plan refresh, to be considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on 24 May, is that the Council takes a stronger outcomes focus, with a more holistic, ‘systems’ approach to its work. The proposed approach is to align the council’s activities more strongly behind core business. These elements of the Council’s proposed refreshed Strategic Plan provides a good foundation for ensuring the Council’s large freshwater reform effort aligns with climate change objectives and that the Council’s economic development effort is similarly aligned to, and is mutually reinforcing with, better land and water management outcomes. Precisely how the Council gives effect to this more integrated approach to its work is currently the subject of discussion among the Council’s executive team and is a key element of the soon-to-be-commenced review of land management functions, which will also feed into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

26. The OECD also had a focus on urban development, and while the issues examined are of greater relevance to territorial and unitary authorities, the OECD has highlighted the need for better integration in the planning of transport, land use and urban development. The recently promulgated National Policy Statement on Urban Development goes some way toward this more integrated approach, as does the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. Work with Napier and Hastings councils on stormwater as part of the TANK plan change also seeks a more integrated approach to urban planning. This may be an area for further exploration by the Regional Transport Committee.

27. Overall, the Council can be satisfied that the issues identified by both the Public Perceptions Survey and the OECD Review are currently high priorities for the Council and work is underway to enhance the Council’s and the region’s performance in meeting the challenges identified. Further consideration of much of this effort will be a key part of the development of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Decision Making Process

28. 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 “OECD Environmental Performance Review and Public Perception Survey of NZ’s Environment 2016” report.

Authored and Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy

Reason for Report

1. To update the Committee on the progress of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan, and in particular the cornerstone action to establish a Biodiversity Foundation.

2. It also introduces Jan Hania, Director of Project Taranaki Mounga and NEXT Foundation, who has been invited to speak to the Committee, with the multi-stakeholder Biodiversity Implementation Planning Group in attendance, on his experience establishing biodiversity trusts and flagship projects.

Background

3. The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (the Strategy), launched in March 2016 is a collaborative response to the known decline of biodiversity at a regional and national scale. It sets out a common vision and goal “to work together, to ensure that important biodiversity habitats and populations of native species are enhanced, healthy and functioning by 2050” in order to halt further decline. Over 50 agencies have committed to the strategy vision, goal and objectives by signing the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Accord.

4. The five objectives in the Strategy relate to native habitats, native species, integrating Māori values, partnerships and community. Only actions that link to these objectives will be included in the Implementation Plan.

5. The Implementation Planning Group (IPG) comprising Accord partners was established in June 2016 to deliver the Implementation Plan. The target completion date for the Implementation Plan is June 2017.

Progress to-date

6. In August-September 2016, three special interest groups were held with tangata whenua, statutory agencies and the conservation community. At these meeting 38 outcomes and 33 actions were identified.

7. After these out-reach workshops, the IPG consolidated the proposed outcomes into a set of time-bound, long-term and intermediate outcomes with associated performance measures. Where appropriate, these outcomes have been aligned with national targets such as those included in the DOC-led New Zealand Biodiversity Action Plan 2016-2020 and the Predator Free NZ 2050.

8. The IPG then ranked the actions by impact and complexity and agreed on 6 priority actions for completion over the next 1-3 years. These first six actions will be the focus on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Action Plan, 2017-2020 (the proposed name of the Implementation Plan, which mirrors the national Biodiversity Action Plan).

Establishing a Biodiversity Foundation

9. The establishment of a Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Foundation is one of the six prioritised actions for immediate implementation. The Strategy explicitly recognises that “although a lot can be achieved by better aligning biodiversity programmes, achieving our vision will require additional resources”. The IPG consider this action to be critical to achieving the vision and strategic objectives of the Strategy.

10. The Foundation will generate an endowed fund to support biodiversity projects on the ground that align with the Strategy vision and objectives. It will bring new money into the region and enable “transformational” change, i.e. change on the scale needed to make a real difference.

11. The aim is to have the charitable trust deed developed by June 2017 and the Trustees appointed by 2018. It is envisaged that seed funding will be sought from statutory agencies such as local authorities for the start-up years. The IPG intends to submit to the 2017-18 Annual Plans of the five local authorities within Hawke’s Bay to signal such a funding request should be expected as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Project Taranaki Mounga and NEXT Foundation

12. The IPG is also investigating the governance structure and operational systems and processes of existing trusts such as the NEXT Foundation and Wild for Taranaki. These are delivering transformational outcomes and provide us with good examples to learn from.

13. With this in mind, the IPG invited Jan Hania, Director of Project Taranaki Mounga (and the NEXT Foundation), to visit Hawke’s Bay to hear first-hand how this large scale ecological project was set up. It was later decided that the Environment and Services Committee was the ideal opportunity for Mr Hania to present given the Regional Council’s key role in facilitating the development of the Strategy and Implementation Plan and potential future role in seed funding the HB Biodiversity Foundation. His experience is also relevant to the decisions being sought by the Committee on the future of predator pest management in the region. Members of the IPG will be in attendance at today’s committee meeting to hear Mr Hania speak.

14. Project Taranaki Mounga, is a ten year $24 million project involving pest eradication and reintroduction of species over the 34,000ha of Egmont National Park. It is a joint venture between the NEXT Foundation, DOC, iwi, and the Taranaki community.

15. The NEXT Foundation is a philanthropic trust with the vision “to create a legacy of environmental and educational excellence for the benefit of future generations of New Zealanders”. Taranaki Mounga follows on from the success of other NEXT Foundation related investments, such as creating a conservation park out of Rotoroa Island and Project Janszoon, a privately funded 30 year ecological restoration of Abel Tasman National Park. Taranaki Mounga will also make use of the technologies developed by Zero Invasive Predators (ZIP), which is funded by a collaboration of partners including NEXT, such as novel traps and automated monitoring.

Decision Making Process

16. 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 “Implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy” staff report.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Keiko Hashiba

Terrestrial Ecologist

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 17 May 2017

Subject: Feedlot and Feedpad Management Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on Council’s management of feedlot and feedpad activities leading into their period of use this year.

Background

2. Last year there were concerns about the operation of feedlots and feedpads. A number of feedlots were observed to be operating in a state that was not within the scope of the permitted activity rule for this type of activity.

3. Feedlots and feedpads are defined in the Regional Resources Management Plan (RRMP) as:

3.1. A feedlot is an area of land upon which animals are kept and fed, for more than 15 days in any 30 day period, where the stocking density or feedlot structure (e.g. a concrete pad) precludes the maintenance of pasture or ground cover.

3.2. A feedpad is an area of land to which animals are brought for supplementary feeding on a regular basis, where the stocking density or feedpad structure precludes the maintenance of pasture or ground cover.

4. The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) provides for feedlots and feedpads as a Permitted Activity providing they comply with the following conditions.

4.1. The land used for the feedlot or feedpad shall be managed in a manner that prevents any seepage of contaminants into groundwater.

4.2. The feedlot or feedpad shall be located no less than 20 m from any surface water body.

4.3. The feedlot or feedpad shall be located no less than:

4.3.1. 150 metres from a residential building or any other building being part of a place of assembly on another site

4.3.2. 50 metres from a property boundary, and

4.3.3. 20 metres from a public road.

4.4. Runoff from the surrounding catchment area is prevented from entering the feedlot or feedpad.

5. If the operation does not comply with Rule 5 conditions then they are a Restricted Discretionary Activity with discretion limited to:

5.1. The conditions which the activity cannot comply with, and the related environmental effects

5.2. Duration of consent

5.3. Lapsing of consent

5.4. Review of consent conditions

5.5. Compliance monitoring.

6. Previously there were two feedlots that were consented within the region. There were nine feedlots known to be operating last year. It is not necessary to report a feedlot activity providing the activity is compliant with the Permitted Activity Rules. One feedpad operation that operates as a permitted activity has permits that consent the discharge of the effluent collected from the feedpad.

7. Since last season’s concerns, Council staff have developed a strategy for addressing the performance of feedlot and feedpad operations this season. This has included informing feedlot and feedpad operators that they must conform with the permitted activity rule or obtain consent, providing information on the rules and the practices required to comply or to address environmental effects.

8. A report was commissioned from Jamie Gordon of MacFarlane Rural Business. This report provided information on operating intensive feedlots where stocking intensity exceeded a density of one animal per 100 m². Staff have used this stocking intensity to distinguish between intensive and extensive feedlots.

9. A distinction between these is that the Gordon report recommends that intensive feedlots be constructed to enable effluent captured and discharged to land via irrigation systems. Extensive feedlots are likely to start the season with vegetative cover and it would be less practical to require sealing of the area and capture of runoff. It is likely that there will be leaching to groundwater. Monitoring or monitoring plans are being required as conditions of consent.

10. The Gordon report has been made available to farmers and Jamie Gordon has visited and provided advice to some farmers. Other consultants have been assisting with applications.

11. An industry meeting was held in January to present the Gordon report, inform farmers of their responsibilities and of the Regional Council’s intentions to more rigorously monitor and enforce the rules this season. It was a constructive meeting with 50 attendees. Jamie Gordon presented and discussed his report and recommendations at this meeting. Council expectations for this winter were clearly conveyed at the meeting.

12. An information flyer was circulated and an offer was made to workshop with anyone who considered they may need resource consent. Council Consents staff have held workshops on two occasions in Waipawa and have made several site visits.

13. Currently 10 resource consents have been lodged. Two have been issued the other eight are in process. Conditions attached to consents include maximum stock numbers and stocking densities, that there shall be no surface runoff beyond the property boundary or to surface water, that stormwater flows be directed away from the feedlot, that there be monitoring undertaken or a groundwater monitoring plan developed for implementation, that a nutrient budgeting be provided.

14. Where feedlots are established in the Tukituki catchment property owners are being reminded of their obligations under Plan Change 6. These include the need for a whole of property Farm Environment Management Plan (FEMP). These plans need to be in place by 2018, but where possible officers are asking to see these plans now with the feedlot operation integrated into the plan. Properties are required to comply with the LUC entitlement for the property or obtain resource consent by 2020. If feedlots are contributing to an exceedance of the LUC entitlement these will need to be reviewed when seeking a Production Land-use consent ahead of 2020.

15. The Resource Use section of Council will be monitoring all known feedlot and feedpad operations this winter whether they are consented or permitted activities to ensure compliance with the rule and conditions. Corrective actions will be required and enforcement and abatement actions will be taken if necessary. In addition there will be aerial monitoring undertaken to locate operations which may not currently be known and ensure they are operating appropriately.

16. As mentioned Rules 5 and 6 of the RRMP are the rules which control feedlots and feed pads. There is some ambiguity with the rules and staff are reviewing these with a view to future plan changes.

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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Feedlot and Feedpad Management Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Keith Peacock

Team Leader Compliance

Brendan Powell

Land Management Officer Intensive Land Use

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

HBRC Feedlot Infosheet

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Stormwater Management

Reason for Report

1. To provide information on stormwater discharge consents in process or issued to Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs) across the region. As noted in the report by James Palmer, in this agenda on the recent reports on environmental performance (OECD) and public perception of NZ’s environment (Lincoln), stormwater is considered as one of the three biggest sources of damage to freshwater.

Background

2. The Regional Resources Management Plan (RRMP) and the Coastal Environment (CEP) Plans include rules that provide for the discharge of stormwater to land and into water. The activity can be a permitted activity where the stormwater is from areas that do not include industrial or trade premises greater than 2ha in area or that do not use or store hazardous substances. This means stormwater runoff from housing areas, farms or roads for example, can be discharged as a permitted activity, providing conditions are met.

3. The District Councils provide networked stormwater collection and discharge across urbanized/industrial parts of their districts. The District councils administer bylaws to control the parties who connect to these Council managed systems. However parties do not have to connect to the District Council systems and are able to apply for individual resource consents if these are required. Because the activity is a controlled activity HBRC is obliged to grant these if the conditions are being met.

4. Many of the District Council stormwater systems have been established for over fifty years - well before legislation required them to have consents. They are in place and the discharge cannot be easily stopped. This does not excuse the Councils from managing their stormwater collection and discharge so as not to cause environmental problems, but it can mean there are legacy issues and that there is a need for improvements. Resource consent conditions will include the need for monitoring and for strategies to achieve improvements.

5. The Regional Council has issued a number of stormwater discharge consents to the Territorial Local Authorities within the region and there are some that are still in progress, shown on the attached spreadsheet.

6. The rules in the plans could be improved. There is a work stream in the TANK project that is looking at stormwater and this may lead to amendments to the rules and improvements to the treatment and management of stormwater discharges.

Decision Making Process

7. 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 “Stormwater Management” staff report.

Authored by:

Keith Peacock

Team Leader Compliance

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Updated TLA stormwater consents

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 May 2017

Subject: Clive River Dredging

Reason for Report

1. To outline the history of the dredging operations carried out in the lower Clive River and to update the committee on the status of the Clive River bed.

2. Removal of the silt build-up has been through the use of a suction cutter dredge brought in from outside the region. A preliminary investigation on flow augmentation to aid silt flushing has been carried out to determine if the option was worthwhile proceeding with.

Background

The image below shows the location and extent of the dredging area of the lower Clive River

3. Following representations to Council by sporting and other Clive community organisations, Council included in its Annual Plan for 1992-93 a proposal to investigate the feasibility of dredging the silt from the bed of the lower 2,000metres of the Clive River in order to increase water depth and reduce weed growth.

4. Originally the lower Clive River was part of the Ngaruroro River until 1969 when the Ngaruroro was diverted entirely down the overflow channel. This resulted in a drastic reduction in the flood flows and change of flow regime of the lower Clive River. A consequence of this was a build-up of silt over the river bed which had previously been gravel as fine sediment was no longer transported to the coast.

5. Gravel is no longer transported through the Clive River as the source has all but been eliminated and importantly the flow regime is not adequate to transport larger sediments.

6. Sediment in the lower reach is believed to be primarily from the Ngaruroro River water backing-up the Clive River during floods. Changing tides also influence the flows and sediment transport. Sediment from the Karamu catchment also contributes although the rate of sedimentation is much slower than for the lower Clive River.

7. The 1993 survey indicated that since the diversion of the Ngaruroro River, 66,000 cubic metres of silt was deposited over a length of 2,000 metres of the lower Clive River, reducing the depth by an average of 0.35 metres.

8. In addition, the high nutrient load contained in the silt helps enhance the growth of aquatic weeds which provide further restrictions on the use of the reach for water sports, particularly rowing.

9. The siltation is not significant in terms of flood capacity as flood levels in the reach are determined by conditions of the river mouth, tides and floods in the Ngaruroro River. The stopbanks have been designed to cater for these conditions.

10. Dredging was first carried out in 1997 after obtaining resource consent. The following is a summary of the relevant details of the dredging.

1997 Dredging Summary

Total Project cost	$472,647
Dredging costs	$391,069
Consent, survey, design, liaison costs	$81,578
1840m long by 70m wide tapering to 40m upstream of SH2 bridge
Approximately 58,000m³ dredged
Consent dredge timing: 15 May to 8 Sept.

11. Dredging was again carried out in 2009, with another consent and renewed community liaison. The dredged volume in 2009 was less than the 1997 volume and did not extend as far upstream as the first operation as the siltation upstream was much less.

2009 Dredging Summary

Total Project cost	$730,000
Dredging	$647,205
Consent, survey, design, liaison costs (estimate)	$80,000
1500m long upstream of SH2 bridge
Approximately 46,470m³ dredged
Consent dredge timing: 4 May to 31 July.

12. Disposal of the silt from the riverbed was via a pipeline and pumps to the sea. This is a far less expensive option than disposal to land. However, obtaining consent for future disposal to the sea may be more difficult than in the past.

13. The sedimentation rate is approximately 6,500 cubic metres per year. As of 2014 the increase in sediment from the 2009 dredging amounted to 23,000 cubic metres. By the end of this year the amount is expected to be about 43,000 cubic metres and due for further dredging sometime in 2018 or 2019.

Discussion

14. Besides being nutrient rich the river bed sediments are likely to contain a number of other contaminants bound to clay and smaller particles that have settled out.

15. The 2004 Te Karamu report did not specifically measure contaminants in the bed sediments, however, suspended sediment samples over a number of key indicators exceeded ANZEEC(2000) guidelines for slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems.

16. Recent work by Hastings District Council as part of their annual stormwater compliance monitoring on tributaries of the Karamu indicates that there are exceedances of ANZEEC(2000) guidelines for metals in some of the low gradient streams discharging to the Karamu and it is reasonable to assume that these contaminants find their way to the Clive River, possibly at a lessor concentration.

17. As noted dredging will be required sometime in 2018 or 2019 at the latest if the desire of the community is to maintain the recreational values of the area. Total project costs are expected to be close to $1million and that will depend on a suitable location to dispose the silt if sea disposal is no longer palatable.

18. Currently the Clive River dredging reserve is $429,027 (Project 286, HPFCS River Maintenance) with an annual contribution of about $63,000. By 2018 or 2019 the reserve account will be well short of funds to dredge the estimated volumes.

19. HBRC has no statutory obligation to fund silt dredging for this river as there is no additional flood risk if the dredging is not carried out. There is however a valued public amenity, particularly valued by rowers that needs to be considered.

Flow Augmentation to reduce siltation

20. Staff have carried out some preliminary work to determine if the silt could be removed or managed through flow augmentation. This could be either through a constant increase of low flow via the Ngaruroro River, or an irregular burst of floodwater from the same source. The flows would be controlled through a culvert or weir structure located somewhere near the eastern end of the Country Park.

21. The flow augmentation at low flow rates was determined to be insufficient to make any difference in generating the necessary shear forces to activate the silts and get them entrained in the flow to move out of the system. Macrophytes work to collect the silts and bind them together making movement even more difficult. The ebb and flow of the tide also affects flow in the river and hence sediment transport ability. There is also the effect of reduced flow to consider for the Ngaruroro River on the ecology of the lower reach.

22. Flow augmentation using larger flood flows was likewise ineffective for the same reasons. In addition using flood flows also means they are heavily sediment laden. A suitable flow control structure would also be substantial and costly.

23. The conclusion from the study was that flow augmentation would not be successful.

Decision Making Process

24. 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 “Clive River Dredging” staff report.

Authored by:

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

⇩1	Regulation Update
⇩2	Operations Update

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.