Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Business Investment in Biodiversity in Hawke's Bay

Reason for Report

1. Potential business investment in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay will be key to achieving the Regional Biodiversity strategy goals. Clearly articulating the critical role business has in investing in Hawke’s Bay and where they can invest with impact is an important role for those leading biodiversity within this region over the next decade. This report discusses that broader context, the potential for a partnership with OMV NZ Ltd and where funding from a partnership with OMV might be directed.

Regional Biodiversity Context

2. Biodiversity within Hawke’s Bay has a similar context to the rest of New Zealand. While there are areas of success the overall picture is one of biodiversity loss and ongoing decline.

3. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Biodiversity Strategy was publically launched in May 2016 as a community initiative to create a positive step change for biodiversity in this region. It is currently in its implementation planning phase, with the key objectives being to set up a regional biodiversity forum and a foundation to build the regional funding base and to begin delivering the biodiversity implementation plan. Achieving the aspirations of the Regional Biodiversity Implementation Plan will require:

3.1. Greater community participation

3.2. More effective interagency and community alignment of activities that drive biodiversity outcomes

3.3. Additional funding.

Business investment in Biodiversity

4. Business investment in biodiversity will be fundamental to making a difference for biodiversity in this region. We need to clearly articulate the urgent need for business investment in biodiversity, where they can invest with impact, and what the benefits to the business may be. There are a range of areas where business can support biodiversity investment including:

4.1. Being leading sponsors of large scale projects with associated profile, leveraged funding and branding rights

4.2. With funding specific activities such as native species translocations

4.3. By providing their business services or products at a reduced cost. This is often valuable to projects in an ‘in kind’ capacity

4.4. Through their often wide and varied networks of people

4.5. By involving their staff in ecological restoration activities.

5. On 14 - 16 November 2017 the Cape to City and Poutiri ao o Tane projects are hosting a national conference, “Transforming Biodiversity – Challenging the boundaries”. The conference is intended to transfer the wide range of ecological restoration knowledge learned within these two projects over the last three years. On the evening before the first day of the conference the project team intend to host a “Businesses – investing in biodiversity with impact” function. This aims to create greater awareness within businesses of where they can invest in Hawke’s Bay biodiversity with impact and business benefit.

Potential partnership with OMV NZ Ltd

6. In February 2017 staff were approached with the opportunity to have OMV invest as a business in biodiversity in the Hawke’s Bay region. This was discussed in principle with Councillors who directed staff to further explore the nature of the investment and potential partnership.

7. OMV is head-quartered in Vienna, Austria. A subsidiary OMV NZ Ltd has been working in New Zealand for around 15-20 years in oil and gas exploration, production and development. In New Zealand, OMV NZ Ltd (OMV) is a company of around 90 staff based in Wellington and New Plymouth. They operate the Maari Field in offshore Taranaki, a number of exploration blocks around New Zealand, and are part owners of gas production permits at Pohokura and Maui. OMV has an offshore permit on the East Coast.

8. In presenting to OMV HBRC staff sought to understand what OMV were seeking from the partnership. OMV have been supporting biodiversity and community projects in New Zealand for almost a decade now, with current projects based in several regions, including in the Marlborough Sounds, Taranaki and Kapiti Coast. For example, they currently support biodiversity projects on D’Urville Island and Mana Island, and at the Rotokare Scenic Reserve in Taranaki.

9. Partnering with projects that are established and well governed is key to OMV. This provides assurance their contribution is well spent, and is more likely to result in successful outcomes. Predator control and linking into Predator Free New Zealand 2050 is of interest to OMV as it provides the additional opportunity for leveraged funding. There is strong interest in getting involved in a well-run project in the Hawke’s Bay region as the region is within travel distance for staff involvement, allowing an opportunity for volunteer days.

10. OMV does not seek branding. A mention alongside other sponsors in newsletters where relevant would be appreciated.

11. The discussion with OMV staff in Wellington highlighted they prefer projects with a longer term vision and strategy, and would typically sponsor in 3-4 year blocks. This means staff can develop a connection with the project, build relationships in the community, and in time see the impact of the combined contributions of their own and others efforts toward achieving that vision.

12. OMV has indicated that they are interested in partnering with Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. This is potentially with a predator control project to gain the leveraged funding available from PFNZ 2050. Subject to HBRC Councillors agreeing to the partnership, and a quality project proposal providing clarity on project detail, they have agreed in principle to fund $50,000 per annum for four years.

The start of a Predator Free Mahia and a Predator Free Hawke’s Bay

13. A predator free Mahia Peninsula is an excellent opportunity to take the first steps towards a predator free Hawke’s Bay. Mahia peninsula is attractive as an predator control investment because it:

13.1. Is geographically largely surrounded by water which reduces pest reinvasion after control.

13.2. Has the nationally recognised Whangawehi catchment management group undertaking ecological restoration across 25% of the peninsula. This group has experienced and professional coordination combined with strong community / Marae participation and leadership.

13.3. Has an existing Possum Control Area programme and could be the first area to showcase how the Regional Pest Management Plan process can transition Possum Control Areas to Predator Control Areas large scale across the region.

13.4. Can contribute towards the Predator Free NZ 2050 national targets.

14. Staff propose that Council matches OMV’s in principle investment of $50k pa for four years and seeks leveraged funding from Predator Free NZ 2050 of $50k pa. This would provide $600k in funds over a four year period which would be directed towards a community led project supported by Council with the vision of a predator free Mahia.

15. Council’s matched funding would come from existing biosecurity budgets already set aside for predator control.

Predator control areas and biosecurity funding

16. Social science research undertaken with land users in the Cape to City project (Niemiec et al 2016 attached) highlighted a number of valuable themes. One of these was that many in the farming community value predator control but also believe that there are greater biodiversity or public good benefits from broader predator control when compared to just controlling possums. While many land users are happy to undertake predator control they believe this public good benefit should be recognised in the partnership with the broader community.

17. The Regional Pest Management Plan discussion document, currently out to the public for submissions, talks about the potential for predator control areas and signals that a greater public good is likely for biodiversity from large scale predator control. Staff propose as part of the Regional Pest Management Plan review to undertake a review of the mix of targeted rate and general funding for large scale predator control. This would include a review of the science around additional biodiversity benefits, and the relative funding mix for other regional pest and predator control programmes.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. Council’s matching funding of $50,000pa is from existing biosecurity budgets assigned to regional predator control rollout.

Decision Making Process

19. 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:

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

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

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

19.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those with an interested in biodiversity and biosecurity outcomes.

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

19.6. 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. The Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Business Investment in 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. Agrees that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will partner an investment with OMV NZ Ltd with an initial investment of $50,000 pa for up to four years, provided from existing biosecurity budgets.

2.3. Seeks additional leveraged funding from Predator Free NZ 2050.

2.4. Agrees that these resources are to support a community partnership directed towards achieving the vision of a predator free Mahia.

Authored by:

Mark Mitchell

Principal Biosecurity Officer

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Policy Recommendations based on Landholder’s Perspectives on Coordinated Pest Control

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Staff Policy and Protocol for LGOIMA Requests Made for Councillor Communications

Reason for Report

1. Staff are seeking Councillors’ approval of a policy and protocol for responding to LGOIMA requests requesting the communications of elected representatives.

Options Assessment

2. Staff, after discussions with councillors and the Ombudsman, have been asked to create a protocol to provide clarity and surety for both councillors and staff who may receive a request of this nature. Hence, updating the existing Staff Policy to include the specific protocol to be followed is the only option pursued by staff.

Policy Considerations

3. The Chief Executive is required under his employment contract to comply with the LGOIMA and ensure the Council remains compliant at all times.

4. The presumption of LGOIMA (s.5) is that official information “shall be made available unless there is good reason” under the Act for withholding it. LGOIMA specifically requires that the Chief Executive, or an officer or employee authorised by that Chief Executive, undertakes the assessment and decision making process for all requests received by the Council.

5. Each request for official information must be considered on its merits; there is no precedent set in relation to subsequent or additional LGOIMA requests made, or responses to or decisions made on requests.

6. Official information is defined as “any information held by a local authority” but does not include information in a library or museum, information held for the sole purpose of safe custody or information contained in any communications between the Office of the Ombudsman or the Privacy Commissioner and any local authority relating to an investigation conducted by an Ombudsman or Privacy Commissioner.

7. Any information held by an elected representative in their official capacity is deemed to be held by the agency itself [s.2(3)], irrespective of where that information is stored. The policy recognises that the Chief Executive, or authorised staff member, cannot in any practical manner obtain councillor communications that are not held by the Council without the cooperation of the councillor in question, nor can he or she compel any councillor to comply with the law, this being the role of the Ombudsman. The policy also recognises the potential sensitivity of councillor communications and therefore confinement of any assessment of application of the legislation to the Chief Executive alone, in consultation with the relevant councillor.

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 members of the public requesting official information, those subject to official information requested under LGOIMA s.10 including elected representatives, and HBRC staff processing and responding to LGOIMA requests.

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

8.6. 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 “Staff Policy and Protocol for LGOIMA Requests Made for Councillor Communications” 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 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.

3. Approves the “Staff Policy and Protocol for LGOIMA Requests Made for Councillor Communications” either as attached or including agreed amendments.

4. Exercises its delegated powers to make a decision that will have the same effect as the Council could itself have exercised or performed, and that the decision deserves urgency in order to meet legislative timeframes for current Ombudsman complaint investigations, and is carried unanimously.

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Manager

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1

Staff Policy 034 - LGOIMA

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Havelock North Government Inquiry Stage 2

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the Committee with an update on Stage 2 of the Government Inquiry into the Havelock North Drinking Water Contamination Event.

Background

2. Following the establishment of the Government Inquiry into the Havelock North Drinking Water Contamination the Inquiry released its findings on Stage 1 in May 2017. These findings were reported to HBRC at its Environment and Services Committee meeting on 17 May 2017 and focused on the causes of, and response to, the contamination event.

3. Stage 2 of the Inquiry is in two parts. Stage 2 (a) was heard over three days at the end of June and Stage 2 (b) is scheduled for a week-long hearing in early August.

4. The purpose of this paper is to update the Committee on progress towards a submission.

Collaboration

5. Following the Stage 1 findings the Inquiry distributed a list of issues for Stage 2(a). These focussed on the ongoing safety of the drinking water from Brookvale bore 3, and on the process of collaboration from the key parties, this having being noted as less than optimum in the Stage 1 findings.

6. A meeting between the Mayor and senior staff from Hastings District Council and the Chair and senior staff of HBRC resulted in a commitment to prepare joint submissions to the Inquiry as far as possible. The District Health Board were invited to participate and agreed to this.

7. As a collaborative initiative, the parties have collectively engaged the environmental planning firm Mitchell Daysh Limited to advise us as we prepare for and contribute advice to Stage 2 of the Inquiry.

8. The collaborative group formed for the purpose of Stage 2 is known as the HB Water Forum. The objectives of the Forum are to:

8.1. Work collaboratively and use the learnings from Stage 1 of the Inquiry to:

8.1.1. Ensure that all existing and future drinking water supplies in the Hawke’s Bay Region are safe for human consumption

8.1.2. Develop a process framework that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies

8.1.3. Identify where national direction/assistance may be required

8.1.4. Be seen by the Inquiry as a “trusted advisor”, as a provider of information that can be relied upon and be influential in determining the outcome and findings of Stage 2 of the Inquiry.

9. In the same vein, the Principles of Collaboration under which the Forum operates is as follows.

9.1. Learn from the mistakes made and criticisms received from Stage 1

9.2. Put personal agendas to one side

9.3. Seek the best available advice, whether in-house or not

9.4. Avoid ambiguity or conflicting information and advice

9.5. Be open-minded – recognising that no options are ‘off the table’ until properly analysed and no existing system is immune from being changed/improved

9.6. Ensure options are assessed in a ‘big picture’ manner first before getting into details

9.7. Act in a transparent and open manner

9.8. Act with integrity and professionalism at all times.

Stage 2(a) Hearing

10. The focus of Stage 2(a) was on the Inquiry Panel satisfying itself that collaboration between the agencies was occurring and that the safety of the drinking water supply from Brookvale bore 3 could be assured.

11. Chris Tremain, as Chair of the Joint Working Group, appeared as a witness before the Panel and spoke about collaboration. HBRC CEO James Palmer addressed HBRC’s ongoing commitment to, and priority for, the provision of safe drinking water.

12. Iain Maxwell, Group Manager Resource Management, also appeared as a witness at the Stage 2(a) hearing and addressed some of the more technical questions posed by the Inquiry, including their focus on the potential introduction of Source Protection Zones for public water supplies, and amendments to the National Environment Standard for Drinking Water.

Stage 2(b) Hearing

13. The Inquiry will resume on the 7 August and is receiving written submissions up until 21 July. The focus of the HB Water Forum team is firmly on providing its submission by the deadline.

14. The breadth of examination for Stage 2(b) is on the governance, management and operating framework for public drinking water across New Zealand. It will examine that legislative and regulatory context that exists and the Inquiry envisages making recommendations to the Attorney General on changes to this environment if the need is identified. The Inquiry is particularly looking to the experience from Hawke’s Bay to provide some direction on these matters but will also be hearing from other local government entities, advocacy groups and central government departments.

15. The Inquiry has identified over twenty broad issues it wishes to traverse and a range of sub-issues on each matter. The Forum is proposing a collective submission where appropriate and submission from individual agencies where required.

15.1. Issues include:

15.1.1. Drinking water safety and compliance levels.

15.1.2. Treatment of drinking water.

15.1.3. Dedicated drinking water supply entity or entities.

15.1.4. NES regulations.

15.1.5. Consenting by regional councils.

15.1.6. Regional councils approach to first barrier protection for drinking water.

15.1.7. Drinking water suppliers.

15.1.8. Drinking water assessors.

15.2. The Inquiry Panel will make its final report by 8 December 2017.

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.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Havelock North Government Inquiry Stage 2” staff report.

Authored by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Climate Change Adaptation

Reason for Report

1. This report updates Committee Members on two Council workstreams aimed at informing our Climate Change Framework for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Long Term Plan

2. Council undertakes a range of planning activities related to climate change, but as yet has not brought this together under a single coherent climate change framework. Dr Sean Weaver (Executive Director, Ekos) has been contracted by Council to prepare a draft climate change section for the next Long-Term Plan (LTP). This exercise has a primary focus on HBRC assets and operations, a secondary focus on Council services, and a tertiary focus on the wider Hawke’s Bay region. Mr Weaver will be in attendance at the E&S Committee meeting to provide a brief summary of the project and answer any questions the committee may have.

3. The climate change challenge for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council falls into two broad categories:

3.1. Climate change adaptation (learning to live with a changing climate).

3.2. Climate change mitigation (transitioning to a low carbon economy).

4. This climate change component of the LTP seeks to address both climate change adaptation and mitigation. It is proposed that this will be structured by:

4.1. Presenting a summary of the scientific basis of the climate change phenomenon as it relates to the Hawke’s Bay region.

4.2. Highlighting core climate change adaptation challenges for HBRC and the region.

4.3. Highlighting core emission reduction challenges and opportunities.

4.4. Presenting a strategic framework for approaching these challenges.

5. From a climate change adaptation perspective, Council plans to continue reducing exposure to climate-related risk for Council assets and services and the wider regional community. These risks arise from a future climate that is projected to become dryer, stormier, with higher impact rainfall events, more intense droughts, fewer frost nights, higher sea levels, and greater impact from storm surges. This climate change adaptation planning exercise will examine ways to strengthen Council’s resilience for itself and the region, through prudent investments and strategic planning targeting hotspots for climate change adaptation response measures. Council has already undertaken a lot of work in this area, and this LTP exercise will collate this effort and provide a strategic framework for moving forward and addressing any gaps.

6. In terms of climate change mitigation (greenhouse gas emission reductions), the draft climate change LTP component will explore ways for HBRC to reduce its exposure to current and future climate policy risks associated with emission reduction responsibilities, and show low carbon leadership in the regional economy.

7. The goal of this draft climate change LTP component is to explore ways for Council to be proactive and innovative so it can take best advantage of the opportunity to eliminate inefficiencies that would expose Council assets and services to future risk, whether from carbon pricing, energy pricing, or land management challenges. This approach also acknowledges that an energy efficient, low carbon economy is more agile, prosperous and durable, than an energy inefficient economy overly reliant on fossil fuels and carbon-intensive activities.

Landcare Research Climate Change Adaptation Report

8. In mid 2016, Council was approached by Landcare Research for its support of a project bid to MPI’s Sustainable Land Use and Climate Change fund (SLMACC). The region had been identified using project selection criteria as being the ideal location to investigate the use of the adaptation pathways methodology due to the diversity of land uses, potential impacts of climate change and history of interaction and proactivity working with Crown Research Institutes.

9. The two-year project commenced in January 2017 and concludes with a final report in 2019. The project lead is Landcare Research but is also supported by partners from Plant & Food, Scion and NIWA. Scientists from Landcare Research will be in attendance at the E&S Committee meeting to provide a brief summary of the project and answer any questions the committee may have.

10. Climate change is expected to adversely affect primary industries, compounding existing vulnerabilities, creating new ones and confounding decision-making. Although our understanding of potential impacts has improved, the capacity for identifying, evaluating and comparing adaptation options remains limited by poor integration of social and economic studies with biophysical impact assessments and an emphasis on individuals’ adaptive strategies.

11. The aim of this project is to develop applied adaptation pathways capable of supporting robust decision-making at multiple scales and across diverse sectors. The findings of the project, including the conceptual and methodological frameworks, will provide a template for further application in diverse sectors and regions and support the effective integration of climate change issues into policy and planning processes.

12. Adaptation pathways are an analytical approach to address change and uncertainty to support adaptation planning and strategic decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. A pathways approach considers multiple possible futures and tests the robustness and flexibility of adaptation options across these futures to avoid ‘lock in’, and inform decision-making. Adaptation pathways are a way to support regional policy planning and decision-making processes to develop an array of options that work reasonably well across a wide range of social, economic and climate futures.

13. Working with land managers and other primary sector stakeholders, we will develop an integrated vulnerability assessment for Hawke’s Bay (HB), combining regional climate change projections with an impact assessment and providing an evaluation of scenarios for future change. The project uses a comparative case-study methodology to explore adaptation options in two HB catchments (Heretaunga Plains and Wairoa), as well as developing a regional economic model, to quantify likely impacts and options at a higher scale.

Decision Making Process

14. 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 “Climate Change Adaptation” staff report.

Authored by:

Nathan Heath

Acting Manager – Land Management

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Strategic Development Group Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Catchment Management White Paper

Reason for Report

1. The implementation of both regional and national policy for fresh water management is increasingly being seen as a significant challenge for regional councils. Our ability to adapt and achieve outcomes is challenged by the way we are working.

2. Finding a new way of working seems more and more an important step for Council to consider. There is a growing need to integrate many functions within council to achieve outcomes that might require contribution from many parts of the business. This paper sets out at a very high level a concept for this that reflects the thinking and actions occurring internationally and also regionally within New Zealand.

3. This report is looking to start a conversation and seek feedback from Council. There is no substantive detail in this paper as the concept requires additional thinking and development. If there is broad support for the concept and Council consider it worth further development, staff propose to begin rounding out the thinking, bring experiences from within New Zealand and internationally to the discussion. This would be done with urgency to allow the Long Term Plan development to reflect the required changes.

4. Staff are interested in discussing whether there is comfort in the concept. What might the risks be? How would this assist with the ongoing concern about the lack of integration of Council’s functions? Does Council agree that the approach should shift from what we are doing to the outcomes required and outcomes achieved? Staff are seeking this feedback to assist us with preparation for the Long Term Plan.

What is Integrated Catchment Management?

5. Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) and its various other forms has been the subject of many dozens of publications and academic journal articles. How we chose to frame up what the concept means for our region and our work is something that we can develop in time.

6. Fenemor et al published a multi-year study of ICM in 2011 in a special edition of the New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. In this, they noted that ICM is a process that recognizes and catchment as the appropriate organizing unit for understanding and managing ecosystem processes.

6.1. In a context that includes social, economic and political considerations, and;

6.2. Guides communities towards an agreed vision of sustainable land and water resource management for their catchment

7. Stream and river stability, soil stability and flooding are influenced by natural events and processes and people’s activities over an entire catchment and beyond into the marine environment. So, it’s important that we don't just manage a stream or river in isolation, but instead manage its catchment as a whole. This is ICM.

8. Taking an ICM approach allows us to move from a conventional multi-disciplinary way of working and thinking and elevating it to an environment that is trans-disciplinary and requiring people to think and work across domains, not just in their traditional space. The method also allows for thinking in a ‘systems’ way that focuses on addressing fundamental causes not just responding to symptoms.

Background

9. As HBRC develops and begins implementation of new policy in catchments to align our planning framework with the NPS-FM, we are facing significant challenges to the way the institution prepares for and then delivers or implements the policy as it is developed. Nationally and regionally, staff are concerned about the significant level of activity and resourcing required to turn policy into outcomes.

10. It is arguable that the easy part, the writing of policy, is either underway or has occurred. The more challenging activity of effecting change and achieving outcomes is beginning. The resourcing requirements for this are likely to be significant and ongoing for some decades. It is also evident that the way we work needs to change and the culture of the organization needs to shift to allow us to deal with the challenges.

11. Recent proposed amendments to policy C1 of the NPS-FM have reinforced that Councils must be setting policy and organising themselves to achieve ICM. These changes have been consulted on through the Clean Water document that was recently released for feedback. The requirement for an ICM approach was previously in the NPS-FM but was not as strongly worded as it is proposed. This all sits in section C of the NPS-FM which is entitled Integrated management. The proposed policy, in strike out format, is set out below. The text in italics is proposed.

Objective C1

12. To improve integrated management of fresh water and the use and development of land in whole catchments, including the interactions between fresh water, land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment.

Policy C1

13. By every regional council: ~~managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way, so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects. :~~

a) recognising the interactions, ki uta ki tai (from the mountains to the sea) between fresh water, land, associated ecosystems and the coastal environment; and

b) managing fresh water and land use and development in catchments in an integrated and sustainable way, so as to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects, including cumulative effects.

Policy C2

14. By every regional council making or changing regional policy statements to the extent needed to provide for the integrated management of the effects of the use and development of:

a) land on fresh water, including encouraging the co-ordination and sequencing of regional and/or urban growth, land use and development and the provision of infrastructure; and

b) land and fresh water on coastal water.

Cross cutting work

15. In the author’s opinion it is now evident that the traditional approaches and/or models are highly unlikely to be fit for purpose in the current and future operating environments to successfully achieve the required actions and attain the expected outcomes for the region’s catchments.

16. Many of the expected outcomes in policy are what we call ‘cross cutting’. That is they require the coordinated and focused input of more than one section of Council (and indeed people and agencies outside Council) in order that the outcomes are achieved. This approach requires a change to the way we work as well as the culture of those involved in the work.

17. This realisation has already occurred internationally as well as within New Zealand. In Europe the Water Framework Directive required that River Basin Management Plans (RBMP’s) be prepared. These were reported to the European Commission in 2009 and European nations are required to develop and then implement second generation RBMPs. The RMBPs are in effect catchment based and acknowledge the need for coordinated activity across many Government departments.

18. European nations are now confronting the requirement to implement the RBMP’. The plans are required to include a programme of measures to achieve the plan objectives.

19. As we are, European nations are now recognising the requirement for an integrated approach to management that draws together many functions within Government Agencies and indeed many Government Agencies to achieve overall catchment outcomes. In the United Kingdom, the Environment Agency has recently moved to create Catchment Director positions that have this integrating and coordinating function.

20. Within Ireland the Environmental Protection Agency have established a Catchment Science and Management unit. This Unit works together with local authorities, other public authorities, government agencies, and local communities in establishing effective integrated catchment management in Ireland. The main purpose of the Unit is to protect and improve water resources, while ensuring that any water body remains productive for the communities that depend on it.

21. Within New Zealand at least two regional councils are operating a model that looks like integrated catchment management. The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) have used this approach for a number of years and Waikato Regional Council (WRC) have recently started working like this. In brief discussions with the managers involved in delivery they all point to the need for integration to achieve outcomes across many disciplines in Council. Staff are continuing to engage with both councils to understand approaches and look to extract the ideas that are relevant for this region.

Not what we do but how we do it

22. Managing our catchments requires us to understand and integrate a huge range of information – how people are using the water, including drinking, agriculture, industrial use and bathing; the geography and geology of an area, looking at how all the water bodies are connected both above and below ground, how the water flows from where it falls as rain to the sea; how people use the land and water bodies and what livelihoods are supported; and possible sources of pollution, including urban waste water treatment plants, septic tanks, and runoff from farming, forestry and landfills.

23. The proposal to move to an ICM approach is not so much one of requiring fundamental structural change to the business but is more about changing the way we think, work and report on our activities.

24. The Waikato Regional Council approach sets out to manage the region’s catchments in partnership with local communities, to:

24.1. reduce the risk of soil erosion

24.2. reduce the amount of sediment getting into waterways

24.3. improve water quality

24.4. improve river stability

24.5. improve river environments, for example, creating a better habitat for a wider variety of plants and animals (improved biodiversity).

25. BOPRC has also adopted this approach but we have not yet obtained details on how they work this way. Staff are following this up with them.

26. The approach is one of alignment and integration of Council’s activities. While in at least the short term Council’s current functions are proposed to continue. The approach would be one of not necessarily changing what we do; but how we do the work that it is proposed to change.

27. Effective management of water requires us to look at the pressures on our water resources at an appropriate scale - large enough that we can take account of all the relevant information, but small enough to ensure that people who live in the area can easily relate to their catchment. Experience around the world and in New Zealand has shown that an integrated approach to managing individual catchments of an appropriate scale is necessary to protect and improve water resources.

Supporting initiatives

28. Staff have been working on a proposal with Waikato University staff to establish an ICM professorial chairs position in the region in partnership with the University of Waikato. This role is likely to have a strong focus on the social science aspects of ICM and include things like behavior change. Staff have been waiting to receive feedback from Council on the overall proposal for and support of an ICM approach before committing to further work to develop the proposal with Waikato. It is likely that an MBIE Endeavour Fund bid would be made to assist in funding the position if the ICM concept is supported.

What could work for HBRC?

29. At this point the thinking is that we should retain the existing functional groups within Council but operate in a matrix approach to deliver the organisational priorities and outcomes under an ICM framework.

30. The approach would allow a focus on practical activities that align with Council’s objectives and achieve outcomes in each catchment.

31. We could initially look to integrate:

31.1. Science (Quality/quantity/land/marine/climate)

31.2. Land management activities, including forestry

31.3. Biodiversity

31.4. Biosecurity

32. We could also potentially integrate immediately, or alternately delay for a future stage:

32.1. Flood management

32.2. Drainage management

32.3. Asset management, including Open Spaces

33. The thinking of staff at this point is that we would be looking to roll out the ICM approach to catchments as new policy is developed. So it would begin in the Tukituki and move into the Greater Heretaunga once the policy is above challenge.

What are some potential benefits of the ICM approach?

34. The resulting alignment of our internal culture and resources provides an opportunity to see greater efficiency and impact in the work we do, particularly in light of the scale of the implementation challenges relative to current and likely future resourcing, particularly as we develop new policy for additional catchments (such as Greater Heretaunga).

35. The approach is aligned to eco-system based management as compared to functional activity management. It also has strong alignment with Te Ao Maori world view and Matauranga. It would allow for a more substantive and richer engagement with Maori around what we are doing and the outcomes we are achieving.

36. There would be enhanced opportunities for stakeholder/partner communication and deeper, less transactional conversations. Understanding the integrated picture would provide an improvement in stakeholder engagement and understanding of our work through providing a consolidated view of council activity.

37. The activities, outcomes and reporting would be ‘place based’ and anchored to communities of interest who are likely to have an active role in the implementation activities.

38. The approach allow staff and management to have greater visibility on the impact and outcomes of our work, not just disaggregated activities, and ultimately provides a platform for integrated economic, social, cultural and environment reporting.

What do we need from Council?

39. It is recognised that this proposal will challenge convention and thinking both for staff and governance. In order that the significant investment in time to further develop this proposal is warranted it would be useful to receive initial reactions and thoughts from Council. Some of the questions that could usefully form some discussion are set out in paragraph 4 of this paper, noting that the discussion should not be limited to these questions.

40. If the proposal is deemed not to have merit then no further work would be done to advance it. If it has broad support, noting the absence of much of the required detail, then further development will continue along with site visits and discussions with at least WRC and BOPRC. If supported, a comprehensive business case will be provided through the LTP process.

Decision Making Process

41. 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 “Catchment Management White Paper” staff report.

Authored by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 July 2017

Subject: Freshwater Improvement Fund Update

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on the status of applications HBRC has made to Central Government’s Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF).

Tūtira FIF Plan (Te Waiū oTūtira – The Milk of Tūtira)

2. Project purpose is “to restore the mauri of Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro, making a place that families can happily return to, and where children can swim.”

3. This project builds on mahi being done via Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust’s, Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi initiative.

4. Problems being addressed are:

4.1. Lack of organisational and community alignment toward resolving water quality issues associated with lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro.

4.2. Erosion and sediment loss from the Tūtira catchment.

4.3. Excessive nutrient load in the Papakiri Stream (the main catchment waterway).

4.4. Poor mauri in lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro.

4.5. Poor water quality in lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro .

4.6. Lack of longitudinal flow through lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro.

4.7. Fish passage.

4.8. Connectivity.

5. The impact these problems are having on the environment, mana whenua, community, and people’s lives include:

5.1. Inability of local community and visitors to swim in Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro for significant periods of the year due to the presence of potentially toxic algae blooms

5.2. Ecological impacts including large scale and unprecedented fish kills, affecting both tuna (eels) and trout have occurred in Lake Tūtira during the 2016 and 2017 summers

5.3. Impacting on Hapū (owners of the lake bed) wellbeing and mana

5.4. The lakes water quality issues do not reflect the taonga status ascribed as the ability to source kai and spiritual sustenance from the lake diminishes

5.5. Impact on local business including the Guthrie Smith Arboretum and Outdoor Education Centre which use the Lakes as an outdoor education resource

5.6. Recreational and tourism impact both locally and nationally

5.7. Strained community, Iwi and organisational relationships

5.8. It has been voiced that due to the poor state of the lakes some Tūtira school children are ashamed to say that they come from Tūtira.

6. Future consequences of not addressing the problem now include:

6.1. Cost of addressing and resolving the problem will increase significantly

6.2. Continued deterioration of water quality within Lake Tūtira with increasing frequency of potentially toxic algae blooms and unswimmable water

6.3. Continued break down and frustration within community relationships

6.4. Loss of pride of place and regional community wellbeing

6.5. Worsening national environmental image. Motorists see and smell the poor state of the lake leaving a bad perception of Hawke’s Bay and New Zealand

7. FIF criteria required a minimum of a 1 year plan and a maximum of 5 years be presented as part of the FIF funding application. The Tutira FIF application is based on a 5 year plan. Note, ongoing HBRC financial commitment will be required beyond the 5 year timeframe of this plan to maintain initial improvements to the water quality of lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro through implementation.

Tūtira 5 year Action Plan Summary

Action	Description	Years	Cost Estimate
a	Establish project manager position Objective To coordinate all actions.	1-5	$288k
b	Health and Safety Plan Communications	1-5	$21k
c	Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) for Tūtira Objective - align all stakeholders toward the goal of improving the mauri of the lakes. - identify priority areas for action within the Tūtira catchment. - coordinate short, medium and long-term actions that will improve the mauri of the lakes.	1	$50k
d	Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMP’s) Objective Within the catchment, at farm scale, FEMPs will identify environmental risks and outline sustainable mitigations that will contribute toward achieving project objectives. FEMP’s focus on five key topic areas: - nutrient cycling - sediment management / erosion control - effluent management - waterways - waste management	1-5	$63k
e	Land Services Advisor Resource and Subsidy Scheme. Objective Support and assistance to farmers for FEMP implementation and provision of a focused subsidy scheme for implementation of mitigation strategies.	1-5	$741k
f	Installation of aeration / bubbler / oxygenation system. Objective Aeration / oxygenation of lakes Tutira and Waikopiro to prevent algae blooms.	1-2	$315k
g	Low flow connection of Papakiri Stream to Lake Tūtira. Papakiri Stream has been diverted away from Lake Tūtira since 1981 due to high nutrient loadings. Community and Hapū feel strongly that the Papakiri stream needs to be reconnected to help restore the mauri within the lakes.	1	$66k
h	Strengthened Papakiri Stream diversion facility. This facility needs strengthening to reduce the amount of sediment entering Lake Tūtira during high flow events.	3	$49.5k
i	Establish longitudinal flow and fish passage. Currently the outlet of Lake Tūtira is 100m from where water enters the lake during periods of high flow from Papakiri Stream. An outlet at the opposite end of the lake from the inlet will provide “longitudinal flow” through the lake system. It will also overcome existing barriers to fish passage. Both outcomes will improve the mauri of lakes.	4	$687k
j	Establish sediment traps in critical source areas. These will catch sediment within the Kahikanui and Te Whatu Whe Whe sub-catchments which are identified as critical sediment source areas.	1-5	$507k
k	Riparian Enhancement of Lake Tūtira Tūtira mai nga iwi project led by Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust promoting hapu leadership in freshwater management through wananga and physical works. Involves plant pest control, fencing, plantings and wetland establishment.	1	$396k
l	Monitoring Specific monitoring programme on the tributaries, outlets and lakes targeting: - water quality (includes installation of new monitoring buoys) - cultural health indexing - sediment loads - social monitoring	1-5	$370k
		Total	$3.55M

8. Total project cost: $3,553,861 over 5 years.

9. HBRC contribution: $1,580,080 over 5 years (existing commitment + 200K extra expenditure per year).

10. Solutions and actions were developed through:

10.1. Reviewing historical research.

10.2. Scientific investigation including targeted lake modelling.

10.3. Long-term community consultation via the Tūtira Maungaharuru Forum and the Tūtira mai nga iwi initiative being led by the Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust.

11. Expected improvements through implementing the FIF action plan:

11.1. Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro are swimmable year round within 12 months of aeration / oxygenation of both lakes.

11.2. Significant reduction in sediment and nutrient loads of primary catchment waterways and lakes.

11.3. Enhanced mauri within lakes.

11.4. Community commitment toward land-use practice that promotes long-term wellbeing of the lakes. hapū, community and regional wellbeing.

12. Problems not addressed through the FIF action plan:

12.1. Legacy load of P in lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro.

13. If the Tūtira FIF application is unsuccessful staff have prioritized actions within the existing FIF plan that can be progressed over the 17/18 year funded from expected annual plan budgetary provision. Prioritised works relate to actions c,f,g,h,j,k,l listed in the table above.

Whakaki FIF Plan

14. Vision Statement is Kia hoki mai te mauri o te wai

15. We will revitalise Whakakī Lake while supporting sustainable land use. Our goal is to help the water recover so tuna are fit for consumption and people can swim safely.

Overview

16. Whakakī is taonga to Ngati Hinepua, Ngati Hine and Ngai Te Ipu. This project has been developed in close association with the Whakakī Lake Trust who are kaitiaki of the lake.

17. The main components of the project are:

17.1. Installation of solar-powered pumps to circulate silt-laden water from the lake through a network of Manuka plantations and treatment wetlands, before returning the polished water to the lake. Conceptually, this would act as a scaled up version of an ‘aquarium filter’.

17.2. Encourage and facilitate the establishment of high value Manuka plantations in low-lying land around the lake which is susceptible to inundation when lake levels are high. This will help remove tensions related to lake water level management, as well as reduce nutrient inputs and provide additional water polishing services of the land fringing the lake.

17.3. Improving water quality in the lake will enable aquatic vegetation to establish, which will further improve water quality in the lake (positive feedback cycle).

17.4. Trial forced lake closures so less water is drained from the lake during artificial opening events. This will aid in lake water level management to optimise a balance between land drainage and protecting ecological values.

17.5. Help develop ecotourism and learning opportunities through the Whakaki School.

17.6. Strengthen Matauranga Maori for Whakakī Lake.

Costs breakdown

18. Total Project: $2,817,774.00 over 5 years

19. HBRC contribution: $1,358,044 over 5 years (existing commitment + 200K extra expenditure per year)

20. Major Items

20.1. Project Manager, Maori Facilitator and consultancy expenses: $464K

20.2. 4 x recirculating wetland systems: $1M

20.3. Monitoring infrastructure and costs: $223K

20.4. Native plantings (mainly Manuka) and maintenance: 712K

Background

21. Whakakī Lake is an intermittently closed and open lagoon (ICOLL). The water quality in ICOLLS is strongly influenced by the degree of flushing that occurs during ‘open’ periods when there is connection to the sea.

22. Recently, the opening has shifted from being a direct cut to the sea (40 m channel) to an opening that occurs via an approximately 3 km long channel (the Rahui channel). This longer channel attenuates the flushing capability of an opening event.

23. The reasons for the shift to the Rahui channel were both ecological and cultural.

23.1. The direct openings were threatening the surrounding wetlands because water levels dropped too low, and low water levels going into summer rendered the lake inhospitable to aquatic life. Strong and negative effects on the eel population were noted by tangata whenua.

23.2. Culturally, there was a belief that the Rahui channel was the natural opening location and so for spiritual reasons this should be the outlet used. Although use of the Rahui channel has benefited the fringing wetland and helped avoid extremely low levels and salty water, it will have resulted in a greater rate of nutrient and sediment accumulation that is sourced both from the surrounding low lying farmland, and highly erodible hill country in its catchment. This material fuels rapid cyanobacterial growth, with extreme blooms common during long and hot summers when water levels can become low via evaporation.

24. A further exacerbating issue for the lake is that high water levels compromise the ability of farmers to utilise the low lying farmland that surrounds the lake. But, high water levels mean the lake is more resilient during long, hot spells. The Lake Trust, responsible for management of the lake, refuses to open the lake after November because of the negative ecological effects and this creates a huge source of contention between stakeholders in the catchment. The late spring and summer period are critical times for farming which, at the moment, cannot be undertaken with saturated or flooded pastures.

25. The low lying farmland is a major source of nutrients in the catchment, and when water levels are high the expanding lake levels can extract these nutrients from the fertile soils and provide a direct source to fuel algal blooms. If this land could be converted to a less intensive form of agriculture that tolerated wet feet (e.g. Manuka), this would both remove tension among stakeholders and reduce nutrient inputs to the lake. It would mean the lake levels could remain higher during the spring and summer, with associated ecological benefits, but without the economic costs to landowners.

26. Currently, about 11% of the catchment is on a pine forest rotation which is currently being harvested. The forest is in highly erodible hill country. Although best practices are being implemented by the harvesters, the lake will inevitably receive an increase in sediment and associated phosphorus in the next few years. This will be a short-lived pulse of sediment which will cease when the forest is replanted. But, without a mechanism in place to remove the extra material that is deposited in the lake, this forest harvest will exacerbate the current legacy of accumulation in the lake.

Problems and Opportunities

27. A legacy load of nutrients and sediment have accumulated in Whakakī Lake. Maximum lake depth is about 1m, which means silt remains in suspension and nutrients are easily available for algal growth. During warm periods an almost constant state of potentially toxic cyanobacterial bloom renders the lake unsuitable for swimming. The cyanobacteria Nodularia can be abundant, and is known to produce toxins that accumulate in tuna tissue which creates a health risk for locals exercising their traditional practice of consuming tuna whole.

28. To have good water quality and minimal algal blooms, shallow lakes like Whakakī require a healthy bed of aquatic vegetation to stabilise sediments and outcompete algae. Abundant aquatic vegetation was present in the lake as recently as 2003, as demonstrated by large numbers of black swans recorded at the time. NIWA experiments in 2007 confirmed a viable seedbank remains.

29. Aquatic vegetation in Whakakī has adapted to disturbance due to the highly dynamic nature of ICOLLs, and so can recover rapidly when conditions improve. Species such as Ruppia polycarpa, for example, behave like an annual species that can bounce back remarkably quickly. But, if seedbanks deteriorate, a rapid recovery is more difficult, because reseeding/replanting (costly) or recolonization (time consuming) would be required.

30. Pine harvest in the catchment has just begun, and risks exacerbating the existing problem if a solution to the existing legacy cannot be achieved quickly.

31. Surrounding wetlands remain a stronghold for nationally endangered bitterns and endemic fernbirds, but species like black swans and Australasian shovelers have declined dramatically. The lake and wetland complex is recognised as first priority wetland in HBRC’s regional resource management plan. If lake vegetation recovered, and the full diversity of birdlife could be restored, the lake and broader wetland complex would be worthy of Ramsar nomination (see DoC support letter).

32. There is currently limited interaction with Whakakī Lake. Approximately 16 kilometres of lake and associated channel are deemed unsuitable for swimming due to cyanobacterial blooms. Limited access restricts appreciation of the beautiful coastal dune and wetland system surrounding the lake. A railbike tourism venture between Wairoa and Gisborne was announced recently and includes 3km of Whakakī lake frontage. Twenty thousand tourists are expected to use this railbike operation which has huge potential to help regional economic development. Without the funding sought in this application, these tourists will witness extreme eutrophication rather than a wetland wonder.

Solutions

33. Sediment and nutrients will be removed from the lake via ‘recirculating wetlands’. Solar powered pumps will circulate 200 l/s and filter the lake in 230 days. Mobile intakes will target bottom water ‘slurry’ but avoid the actual substrate where seeds lie. Silt laden water will be discharged first onto Manuka plantations (occupying higher ground) that drain into constructed wetlands full of Bolboschoenus and Raupo plants (which will occupy lower ground). This approach utilises well-established benefits of sand filtering and then polishing via treatment wetlands (see Professor Guieysse support letter). Irrigation will facilitate rapid growth of Manuka valued by land owners for carbon credits (approximately $100 per Ha per year) and high value honey ($1000 per hive).

34. Cattle will be excluded from the full perimeter of the lake. Manuka will be planted on wetland soils previously used for grazing. Strategic native plantings will provide biodiversity benefits and temporally staggered nectar sources for bees.

35. Clearing the water will allow aquatic vegetation to re-establish and reduce the frequency and magnitude of potentially toxic cyanobacterial blooms. The lake will be considered ‘swimmable’ and Nodularin toxin will not compromise tuna. Tangata whenua will have revitalised their taonga. Tourists will enjoy good water quality and abundant bird life amid stunning wetland and coastal scenery.

36. The recirculating wetland concept incorporates an alternative income stream from ‘retired’ land by converting a waste stream into an income (from slurry to honey). Potential ecotourism income will be maximised via the rail bike initiative and improving access. The economic burden to Whakakī’s rural community will be minimised while they clean up Whakakī Lake and more jobs will exist for people to return for.

37. Returning to direct sea openings with better flushing outcomes would be an alternative approach but this is not acceptable to tangata whenua. Conventional, in river treatment wetlands could be used but would be overloaded during flood events and fail to address the legacy load.

38. Long term solutions for Whakakī will require improvements in the catchment. Catchment initiatives are being advanced in partnership with MPI (involving spend >$65K before June 2017), although future funding is tbc. Dr Simone Langhans has been funded by the European Union to undertake ‘Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses’ in New Zealand, using the Whakakī Lake catchment as one of her case studies starting in January 2018. ‘Catchment focused’ work streams will complement the ‘receiving environment’ focus of this proposal.

Decision Making Process

39. 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 “Freshwater Improvement Fund update” staff report.

Authored by:

Steve Cave

Asset Manager Open Spaces

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader - Water Quality and Ecology

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Brendan Powell

Land Management Officer Intensive Land 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 12 July 2017

Subject: Stormwater Update

Reason for Report

1. This Committee has requested a report on the current relationship between the Regional council and territorial local authorities (TLAs) in connection with stormwater consenting and compliance.

2. Additionally information has been requested on the effectiveness of consenting and compliance operations in this regard.

Background

3. The Regional Resource Management Plan provides for stormwater discharge as a Permitted Activity subject to conditions, and if these conditions are not met it is a controlled activity to discharge water from a property.

4. The main activities that require resource consent approval are industrial properties greater than 2ha in area or that have hazardous substances used or stored on the site. Where these are discharging into a TLA-operated network they will be covered by the TLA’s discharge consent. Otherwise they are required to hold their own stormwater discharge consent.

5. There are a total of 294 stormwater discharge consents across the region. Thirty-five are held by TLAs and the remainder are for privately operated systems. Areas where these private systems occur are Omahu Road, Tomoana, Whakatu, Awatoto and Wairoa. There are also a number of agricultural pack houses that hold stormwater discharge permits, for the discharge of stormwater from the pack house and yard areas.

TLA Storm water consent monitoring

Hastings District Council

6. HDC has 23 resource consents, including a joint consent with Napier City Council relating to the Omaranui landfill.

7. Overall, HDC are compliant in this area. There are a small number of technical non-compliance issues identified in this year’s report as follows.

7.1. There is a requirement that they report to HBRC, within 7 days of every spill that occurs within their network.

7.1.1. A Spill incident table to HBRC on an annual basis and an interrogation of that showed some incidents had not been reported within the 7 day time frame.

7.1.2. These appeared to be minor incidents and that may have been why they were not reported at the time.

7.1.3. Since the beginning of this year, HDC has been vigilant in adhering to the condition.

7.2. Annual sediment sampling was not undertaken in 2016.

7.2.1. Without consultation with HBRC, they engaged MWH instead to analyse data that has identified better methods to identify high risk sites and the treatment required. This is to form the basis for an application to apply to change this resource consent condition.

7.2.2. HDC have been advised of a time frame to make that application before enforcement action [abatement notice] will be undertaken.

7.3. The Annual Compliance and Monitoring Report was received 9 days late from the stipulated date in the resource consent. HDC had forewarned HBRC of the delay and that was accepted.

8. The Stormwater Manager at HDC has been in the position for a reasonably length of time and the relationship between him and HBRC staff is very good. We find him to be responsive and reliable in our dealings with him.

Napier City Council

9. NCC has 12 resource consents, including a joint consent with Hastings District Council, relating to the Omaranui landfill and one with HBRC relating to urban and rural discharge into the Ahuriri Estuary.

10. Overall, NCC are compliant in this area. The one consent where they are not compliant is the one shared with HBRC.

11. That consent relates to the urban and rural discharges into the Ahuriri Estuary via the Westshore tidal gates.

12. The consent was first issued in 1999 and relates to all of the Napier City urban storm water discharges and storm water managed by HBRC from the rural areas to the south east of the city that make their way through the urban area via the cross city drains and to the estuary via the Westshore gates.

13. It was recognised that the monitoring conditions imposed by that consent were not adequate enough to properly analyse the environmental effects of the discharge into the estuary and in 2011, the consent was called in for modification. That comprised of imposing additional monitoring requirements and altering the end date of the consent to be 2018 from 2034.

14. At the time of the last monitoring report [May 2017] the areas of non-compliance with this consent are:

14.1. The consent holder is required to undertake a catchment characterisation that included the outline of a monitoring programme and a map showing all discharge points into the waterbodies within the network.

14.1.1. This information has now been received.

14.2. There are two conditions that relate to providing HBRC compliance with records of complaints received and sampling done.

14.2.1. This information has now been received.

15. In the past there has been a history of not receiving required reports and sampling information from NCC. This has been alleviated within the past 9 months with the employment of a new Asset Manager at NCC and our relationship with him is very good. NCC is well aware that their stormwater and sewage network requires upgrading and that has been given immediate priority behind their Water Supply upgrade programme. They are developing a modelling tool to assist in the identification of system improvements.

16. Additionally there is a NCC pumping station stormwater discharge in the estuary behind the airport that historically has not been consented. NCC are in the process of applying for a resource consent for that discharge. They are awaiting the completion of scientific reports to submit with the application.

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

17. CHBDC has no active stormwater consents at present. They have made application for nine resource consents for Waipukurau and Waipawa areas. These are currently with CHBDC staff for final comment before being issued.

Wairoa District Council

18. WDC has no stormwater consents, any storm water discharges that are consented in the region are held by private individuals or businesses.

Decision Making Process

19. 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 Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

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 12 July 2017

Subject: Electric Vehicle Working Group Update

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an overview of work undertaken to increase Electric Vehicle (EV) uptake in the region.

Background

2. In March, the Committee received a report on discussions about the development of an energy strategy for Hawke’s Bay and the resulting decision that the Regional Council should focus initially on several key areas, including the uptake of electric vehicles.

3. Since then a further meeting has been convened with key stakeholders to develop some concrete elements of a strategy to increase the uptake of EVs in Hawke’s Bay. Two subgroups have met to work on specific actions arising from this. The outcome of these meetings is discussed below. Stakeholders who have been involved thus far include Napier City, Hastings and Central Hawke’s Bay District Councils, Hawke’s Bay DHB, Unison, EIT, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, EV dealers and owners and other interested individuals.

National Progress

4. Since the EV working group first met in 2016, there has been considerable national progress on the promotion of EVs and the installation of charging equipment at key public locations.

5. In May 2016, the Government announced an electric vehicle programme to reduce barriers and accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles and set a target of 64,000 EVs in the NZ fleet by 2021.

6. The diagram below sets out responsibilities assigned to various government agencies.

7. A national EV website www.electricvehicles.govt.nz has been established as the principal source of information for potential and existing EV users. The site is a very comprehensive and up- to- date source of information.

8. Registrations of EVs are rapidly increasing; the website shows that there are now more than 3,700 EVs registered in NZ, up from around 1,300 a year ago.

9. A law change aimed at improving energy efficiency in New Zealand gives motorists even more reason to go electric. New measures contained in the Energy Innovation (Electric Vehicles and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which was passed in June, exempt heavy EVs from road user charges. Light vehicles will remain exempt from RUC until they constitute 2% of the vehicle fleet.

10. The new law also gives road-controlling authorities (such as councils and the NZ Transport Agency) the power to make bylaws allowing EVs to use special vehicle lanes.

11. The range of vehicles available in NZ is increasing all the time and near-new imports are increasingly common. These imports from Japan or Europe are comparably priced with many petrol cars of similar age and mileage; government subsidies on the purchase of new EVs in these countries translate into lower second-hand prices in New Zealand.

12. The cost of running an electric vehicle equates to paying 30c a litre for petrol.

Regional Focus

13. The regional EV Working Group has developed a draft strategy for increasing the uptake of EVs. The key elements of this are:

13.1. Communication

13.1.1. Use organisational channels (websites, FB, press releases, relevant publications) to share summary information about EVs and provide links to national EV site.

13.1.2. Prepare case studies of local EV owners to be used for publicity.

13.1.3. Prepare map of charging points in Hawke’s Bay for electronic distribution.

13.1.4. Organise and promote local “kick the tyres” events that give the public an opportunity to speak to owners and test drive cars (eg. Farmer’s Market, Home Show, Hawke’s Bay Show).

13.1.5. Develop promotional activities for Drive Electric Week (9-17 September, 2017)

13.1.6. Investigate setting up a local EV owners’ club or publicise national facilities eg. EV owners page on Facebook.

13.2. Policy

13.2.1. Promote the adoption of ‘EV First’ fleet purchasing policies by major public bodies.

13.2.2. Challenge private sector organisations to adopt “EV First” fleet purchasing policies.

13.2.3. Investigate opportunities for bylaw changes eg. parking preference for EVs.

13.3. Public Expenditure

13.3.1. Investigate opportunities for the region to apply for national EV promotion funds. (up to $6 million available annually through EECA fund).

13.3.2. Investigate opportunities for installation of charging facilities at public spaces – libraries, council carparks, hospital carpark, swimming pools etc.

13.3.3. Investigate opportunities for council loans for home-charging installations or similar.

14. The Working Group decided to work on two aspects of this strategy initially; communications and the adoption of EV First vehicle purchasing policies by public organisations in Hawke’s Bay. Subgroups of communications staff and fleet managers from participating bodies have been set up and have had initial meetings.

15. The communications subgroup has commenced work on a number of activities, such as press, Facebook and website activity. HBRC is preparing local video case studies of EV owners, which will be distributed for use on Facebook and websites.

16. The fleet managers’ subgroup was very positive about the likelihood of being able to get changes to their purchasing policies supported and adopted. Changes have already been made to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council policy and approved by the Chief Executive, and this template has been distributed to the other organisations for their use.

Next Steps

17. After the initial rounds of publicity, the communications subgroup will meet in August to decide on activities for Drive Electric week and other public events.

18. The fleet managers subgroup will report to the wider group on changes to their purchasing policies by the end of July. Once these are in place, a challenge will be issued to other private sector organisations to also adopt ‘EV First’ purchasing policies.

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Electric Vehicle Working Group Update” staff 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 12 July 2017

Subject: July 2017 Public Transport Update

Reason for Report

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

General Information

2. Bus service changes introduced in late September 2016 are bedding in well. Routes with improved services are growing in patronage, with the new Route 10 now 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 31 May only 6,000 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 extended free bus fares to hospital or outpatient clinic appointments for all patients travelling on any goBay service. Previously, only patients travelling from Napier to the Hawke’s Bay Hospital were eligible for this. This commenced on 1 January 2017 and 2,361 passengers have been carried in the first five months, a 100% increase on the same period last year.

5. The DHB has now extended the benefit of cheaper bus travel to staff. Staff travelling on goBay services will receive a discount on their fare and will reimburse HBRC for this. It is hoped that this will further encourage bus use to and from the hospital. This scheme will commence in July with a promotional period during which DHB staff can travel for free on production of their ID cards. After the two week promotional period, staff will receive discounted fares.

6. Route 12 services are having difficulty keeping to the timetable at afternoon peak times, due to traffic congestion on the route into and out of Hastings. Selected use of overload services is being investigated to help with journey times in the short term, but a longer-term solution could be to reroute some services.

Bus Passenger Trips

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

Table 1 – Monthly Passenger Trips – 2012-13 to 2016-17

8. While the overall year to date patronage is still slightly lower than 2015-16, it has increased since bus improvements were introduced in late September, with October to May patronage 5,000 higher than last year. We are hopeful that this trend will continue into 2017-18.

9. The main routes that are showing growth are:

9.1. The new Route 10 express service Napier-Taradale-Hastings via the Expressway and HB Hospital

9.2. Route 11 express services via Clive

9.3. Route 17 Hastings –Parkvale-Akina-Hastings

9.4. Route 21 Hastings- Havelock North- Hastings.

10. Diagram 2 shows the breakdown of patronage by user groups.

Diagram 2 – goBay bus patronage by user group (2016-17)

User Group	% of Passengers
Adults	17
Children (including high school students)	28.5
Community Service Card	15.2
Seniors	2.3
SuperGold	17.2
Tertiary Students	12.2
Other (DHB travel, promotions etc)	7.6

Bus Service Costs

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

12. 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 – July 2016 to May 2017 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	$2,468,954	$3.53	$0.33
2013-14	$2,304,772	$3.14	$0.30
2014-15	$2,016,085	$2.95	$0.30
2015-16	$1,982,470	$3.13	$0.30
2016-17	$1,947,111	$3.10	$0.29

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

Fare Recovery

13. Fare recovery is the portion of the total cost of the service that is covered by fares (including SuperGold payments from central government). Diagram 4 shows fare recovery for the year to 31 May between 2012-13 and 2016-17.

Diagram 4– Fare Recovery – 2012-13 to 2016-17

2012-13	34.50%
2013-14	37.70%
2014-15	38.86%
2015-16	37.70%
2016-17	38.50%

SuperGold Card Scheme Update

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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 a further interim agreement has been developed for 2017-18, before this issue is finally resolved for future years.

Total Mobility

18. The following tables compare the number of Total Mobility (TM) trips made for the year to May 2017 over the last five years, and the corresponding costs (excl GST).

19. The number of TM trips and the cost of the service has increased for the year to date after two static years. As the population of Hawke’s Bay is not only increasing but also ageing at a faster rate than previously predicted, this growth is to be expected.

Diagram 5 – Total Mobility Trips – YTD 2012-13 to 2016-17

Diagram 6 – Total Mobility Cost ($ excl GST) YTD 2012-13 to 2016-17

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

Decision Making Process

20. 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 “July 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 12 July 2017

Subject: Myrtle Rust

Reason for Report

1. Councillors requested an update on the current incursion of Myrtle rust into New Zealand.

Background

2. Myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii) has been found in Northland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty and Taranaki. It is also widespread on Raoul Island in the Kermadec group, about 1,100km to the north-east of New Zealand.

3. The fungus attacks various species of plants in the Myrtaceae family, also known as the Myrtle family. It is found in many parts of the world including New Caledonia and all along Australia's eastern seaboard.

4. Myrtle rust spores are microscopic and can easily spread across large distances by wind, or via insects, birds, people, or machinery.

5. It is thought the fungus arrived in New Zealand carried by strong winds from Australia. There have been a number of significant weather events capable of transporting spores here and the discovery of the disease in large, established trees lends weight to this assumption.

6. Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the Department of Conservation (DOC), with the help of local iwi, the nursery industry and local authorities are running a large operation to determine the scale of the situation and contain and control myrtle rust in the areas it has been found.

7. This national incursion response for Myrtle rust has a range of associated media and industry communication and engagement, an information sheet as an example of specific group communications (Attachment 1). This incursion response is in its early stages. An assessment will be made in spring whether eradication of Myrtle rust from within NZ is realistic or long term management is necessary.

Hawke’s Bay Context

8. Myrtle rust has not been detected in the Hawke’s Bay region. Should it be detected here and the MPI incursion response still be underway, MPI will lead the response within the region.

9. Council staff have however been actively involved in the Myrtle rust response via the National Biosecurity Capability Network. To date staff have participated in three separate trips to support the incursion response in Northland and Taranaki who are the currently affected regions. This has also prepared staff to participate closely in any incursion response should Myrtle rust be detected in Hawke’s Bay.

10. If the decision is made in spring to transition Myrtle rust to long term management staff will be working closely with the collective of MPI, DOC, and other regional and unitary authorities. At that stage an assessment will need to be made as to what long term management requires, what the future implications on Myrtaceae species will be, and how management programmes will be resourced.

Conclusion

11. Myrtle rust is a significant incursion to New Zealand as it may pose a risk to some of our iconic native species. MPI are leading a national response to this risk and HBRC Biosecurity staff are directly supporting that response. The response is in its early phases and it is unsure yet whether eradication of Myrtle rust from New Zealand is realistic. If eradication is not possible a long term management phase will begin. HBRC staff will be closely involved in the development of the long term management context via regional and unitary councils across NZ as a collective.

Financial and Resource Implications

12. There are no finance and resource implications currently associated.

Decision Making Process

13. 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 “Myrtle Rust” staff report.

Authored by:

Mark Mitchell

Principal Biosecurity Officer

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇩1