Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 November 2017

Subject: Regional Pest Management Plan Proposal

Reason for Report

1. To provide an early draft of the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) for the Committee’s consideration and, subject to changes agreed at the meeting and completion of cost benefit/cost allocation section recommend to Council that the proposed RPMP is adopted for public consultation.

Background

2. The Hawkes Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy 2013 (now Regional Pest Management Plan) is currently under review, with the planned release of the Proposal (attached) in February 2018, for formal public consultation. The Regional Pest Management Strategy is the main statutory document implementing the Biosecurity Act 1993 in the region; providing a framework for the management of plant, animal and horticultural pests in Hawke’s Bay.

3. The development of this Proposed RPMP commenced with a fit for purpose review of the current Regional Pest Management Strategy, undertaken in 2016. Internal workshops were held, followed by meetings with key stakeholders including DOC, horticultural sector, neighbouring Regional Councils, Federated Farmers and contractors.

4. A Biosecurity Working Party (BWP) was formed, consisting of three appointed Councillors, being Fenton Wilson, Rex Graham and Tom Belford, and three appointed members of the Regional Planning Committee, being Karauna Brown, Apiata Tapine and Nicky Kirikiri. The BWP has the following functions:

4.1. Responsible for considering and recommending to staff advice on the Regional Pest Management Plan review process and key issues;

4.2. To consider reports on the Regional Pest Management Plan and to give guidance on recommended approach and to review and give guidance on the discussion document;

4.3. To review and give guidance on the proposal and to provide guidance on the alignment of the Regional Pest Management Plan and the objectives of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy;

4.4. To undertake the duties of the Hearings process.

5. A discussion document was released 12 June to 7 July 2017 for public consultation. To encourage public input, the document focused on key pests and had several mechanisms for providing feedback, including via phone, email, letter, hard copy submission form or the online submission form. A total of 98 submissions were received. The release of the discussion document was advertised via the HBRC web and Facebook page, a YouTube video, an article in HBRC’s ‘Our Place’ newsletter, an article in the Hawke’s Bay Today, along with 4,500 letters being sent to stakeholders and an email sent to key stakeholders, including DOC, Federated Farmers, OSPRI, TBFree Committee, Horticultural sector, Forestry sector, MPI, Fish & Game, Forest & Bird, HB Marine group, QEII and HBRC contractors. A range of feedback was received from this consultation process, which was used to help guide the development of the RPMP Proposal.

6. The consultation process has resulted in key changes to the Regional Pest Management Plan, which this paper outlines. This RPMP Proposal will be publicly notified for public submissions to confirm community expectations and policy directions to be incorporated into the final plan in February 2018.

7. As the programmes set out in the proposed plan have financial implications, the budget for implementing the plan will need to be confirmed through the Long-term Plan process.

8. The budget required to support the key changes included within the proposed plan is:

8.1. $145,000 in contractor budget and one FTE for the possum control area, pest plant, marine biosecurity and feral goat management programmes;

8.2. $400,000 in contractor budget for wide-scale predator control.

9. As the final level of funding available to implement the plan will not be known until the Long-term Plan has been adopted, the proposed plan may be subject to change as a result of receipt of public submissions and the amount of funding that is allocated to the proposed plan through the Long-term Plan process.

Comment

Key changes to the Regional Pest Management Plan

Possum Control Programme

Background

10. Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has been controlling possums through its Possum Control Area (PCA) programme since 2000. This is a flag ship biosecurity programme with over $15m invested directly by Council in the initial knockdown and maintenance of low possums numbers to date. There has been a very high level of support for the PCA programme, and a strong belief by most land occupiers within the programme that it is providing value for money for Biosecurity ratepayers. The programme has grown to just over 700,000ha, with 71 PCAs, and is achieving its target of <5% residual trap catch (RTC).

11. Through HBRC’s PCA monitoring programme, a trend is emerging where the RTC index is rising annually. As shown in the below graph, the current average RTC result is now back to 2004-05 levels.

12. This gradual increase of the RTC also reflects the increasing number of properties that are undergoing educational monitors. This is of concern to HBRC staff as only 10% of the overall PCA programme is monitored annually, resulting in some properties going unmonitored for 10 years or more.

13. In 2016 central government launched PFNZ2050 with the goal of eradicating predators (possums, rats and mustelid’s) from our nation by 2050. Reducing the RTC rate by 1% every 10 years aligns with this national objective and reflects Hawke’s Bay commitment to becoming predator free by 2050.

Proposed changes

14. Reduce possum monitoring requirement (RTC) from 5% to 4%. This will assist in reducing the complacency amongst some land occupiers who are not undertaking regular possum control. It also sends a clear message of the regional and national objective of achieving predator free status by 2050. It is also proposed that there is a significant increase in the amount of monitoring undertaken within this programme.

Wide Scale Predator Control

Background

15. Hawkes Bay Regional Council have been exploring large-scale predator control through the Poutiri Ao ō Tāne and Cape to City projects. Cape to City is progressing well and is nationally recognized as a leading ecological restoration project. Using the Cape to City template, a mechanism will be added to the RPMP to allow the transition of Possum Control Areas to Predator Control areas including the eradication of possums on farmland, should the community wish to do so.

16. RPMPs are basically a tool under the Biosecurity Act 1993. As such they have a range of powers and are required to go through a detailed public engagement and consultation process. They are reviewed every 10 years (although by choice longer timeframes can be set) and with community agreement allow binding rules backed by compliance action to be placed on landowners. Current Possum Control programmes in New Zealand managed by Councils are one example of how the BSA operates at large scales with many of these programmes having been in place for 15-20 years. When a significant majority of the land area of farmers agree to participate in long term ‘maintenance’ control of possums it becomes binding on all landowners in that area and is locked in as a statutory requirement under the BSA. Usually Councils fund the initial control of possums and maintenance control is then underpinned by a rule in the RPMP requiring possum numbers to be kept at or below a Residual Trap Catch percentage by landowners. Council monitors this, advises farmers on best practise, maintains contractor capacity (some farmers choose to do their own control and some use a contractor) and where necessary carries out enforcement. Farmers are responsible for funding their own long term maintenance control.

17. Locking in pest programmes long term under the BSA involves having clear rules so that the community can understand the benefits and commit to the long term support of a pest control programme. Many current RPMP rules for pests have definable technical thresholds that are linked to outcomes. An example of this would be the national trap catch protocol for possums. In some cases the RPMP rule itself also makes allowance for an agreed management plan to support the delivery of the outcomes sought by the rules.

18. One current challenge with farmland predator control is that we do not have (as we do for possums) clear simple measures at a property or operational scale of predator control thresholds that are linked to outcomes. Additionally, while our initial work in Cape to City suggests that input costs in the range of $3-4/ha for long term maintenance of predator pests on farmland may be realistic with wireless trap monitoring, this still needs significant work to finalise the actual long term cost per hectare.

19. Assuming that we can fund initial predator control and have ongoing costs of maintenance at a level sustainable by a regional community, this RPMP mechanism could be used to underpin long term large scale predator control on farmland in New Zealand.

20. Integrating large scale predator control (feral cats and mustelids) into PCA programmes provides a key platform for delivering additional economic and environmental outcomes to land owners. This coupled with appropriately targeted intensive high biodiversity value site protection, as guided by the Ecosystem Prioritisation Model, would provide the greatest likelihood of significant long term integrated biodiversity recovery and primary production benefits across the Hawkes Bay region.

21. Likely RPMP rule structure for a predator control area

22. Because we are early in the understanding of the technical requirements for an RPMP predator control rule, any proposed rules need to strike a close balance between:

22.1. Being flexible enough to allow for technical change in the management context over the ten year RPMP duration, and

22.2. Providing sufficient clarity on the rule that the community understand the benefits and costs of the proposed long term maintenance control they may commit to.

Proposed changes

23. Inclusion of mechanism to allow:

23.1. the transition of Possum Control Areas to Predator Control areas; and

23.2. for the eradication of possums on farmland.

Feral Goats

Background

24. Feral goats are currently declared a pest under the Site Specific Control section of Hawkes Bay RPMS. Site-specific goat Co-ordinated Management Areas (CMA) have been established to manage feral goat impacts on biodiversity and economic damage. These areas only cover a very small portion of the region. Goats are a contentious issue as they are viewed as a pest and a resource, depending on the landowner’s perspective, prevailing climate, and environment and economic value of the goats at the time. A Good Neighbour Rule is a potential mechanism for managing localised feral goat impacts, such as on high biodiversity sites or riparian plantings. It will enable HBRC to bring both parties to the table to develop feral goat management plans, agreed between neighbours. The intention of the rule is to create a regulatory backstop, with a management plan as the main pathway to deliver the goat management. Effective control of feral goats in Hawke’s Bay hill country is very difficult and it is important that any potential regulatory intervention is practical.

Proposed changes

25. Inclusion of a Good Neighbour Rule, with the aim of managing the impact of feral goats on high biodiversity sites and the likely significant increase in investment regionally in plantings.

Chilean Needle grass

Background

26. Chilean needle grass (CNG) is a pest plant which poses a significant threat to the sustainability of farming in Hawke’s Bay. CNG is a very cryptic plant, which is hard to ID, seeds twice a year, is hard to kill without non-target impacts, has restrictions on aerial spraying, has potential erosion issues post control and is spread by many vectors e.g. stock, people, machinery. Current measures have significantly slowed but have failed to prevent the risk of this pest plant spreading to other locations. A discussion with key stakeholders around further options to limit CNG spread was held. Increasing the surveillance programme during the flowering season and tightening pathway restrictions were considered the best tools for preventing the further spread of CNG. A fine balance is required for pathway management as this will have direct implications for individual landowner property rights.

Proposed changes

27. Increased surveillance programme during the flowering season to speed up detections of new sites and greater emphasis on pathway management, particularly making of hay.

Privet

Background

28. Privet is currently listed as total control – service delivery with the aim of preventing significant adverse effects of privet on human health. Recent research suggests that although privet fragrance can be a minor irritant, privet pollen and scent should not be considered as a significant allergen. Most people who are experiencing symptoms during the privet flowering season are reacting to the more allergenic pollens like grasses, weeds (mainly English plantain) or trees such as birch and olive. There are currently no programmes targeting these more allergenic pollen producing species in Hawke’s Bay. It was considered more appropriate to undertake a more targeted approach with this programme than removing it from the Plan, as a small percentage of the community do suffer from privet allergies. These restrictions will allow these resources to be targeted towards genuine privet allergy sufferers, not privet removal based on nuisance factors. Council will still undertake privet removal at no cost to the land occupier but the removal or maintenance of privet hedges to prevent flowering will be the responsibility of the land occupier. Land occupiers will be eligible for the pest plant subsidy scheme.

Proposed changes

29. Addition of restrictions which require a doctor’s certificate/positive blood test prior to action being taken and privet must be within 50m of complainant’s residence or place of work.

Marine Biosecurity

Background

30. Marine pests have the potential to adversely affect our aquaculture and fishing industries, threaten human health and displace our native marine plants and animals. Marine pests are very difficult to control once established, with high costs, rapid dispersal of very large numbers of juveniles, and a lack of safe, effective control technologies. Prevention is the best tool.

31. In 2015, 351 non-indigenous species were identified in New Zealand’s coastal waters, of which more than half (187) had established a breeding population in our marine environment.

32. Currently there are only two known marine pests in Hawke’s Bay, Asian kelp and Australian tubeworm. If council acts now, Hawke’s Bay has an opportunity to work to prevent the establishment of new marine pests through managing the main vector pathway, this being boat hulls, entering Hawke’s Bay waters. Risk pathway management can, at a relatively low cost, reduce the risk of marine pests. This is because, compared with other regions, Hawke’s Bay have a rugged coastline and limited number of ports/marinas.

33. Declaring Mediterranean fanworm and clubbed tunicate as pests and adding a level of foul rule for hulls to the RPMP will give Biosecurity staff the power to require a fouled hull to be removed from the water and cleaned immediately. Many marinas are moving to adopt the Craft Risk Management Standards which require hulls to be cleaned and antifouled regularly. Adding a level of foul rule to the RPMP would align with this standard but also give council a mechanism to respond immediately.

34. Marine biosecurity is a new and complex area of biosecurity management. Collective national coordination is important to successful marine biosecurity and Council has a role to play on behalf of the community in this area alongside other regional authorities, industry and central government. HBRC has formed a close relationship with key players in the marine space, including MPI, Napier City Council, Napier Sailing Club, Harbourmaster, and the Napier Port. All have expressed a strong willingness to assist in preventing further marine pests establishing in Hawke’s Bay.

Proposed changes

35. Inclusion of Mediterranean fanworm and clubbed tunicate as Exclusion pests and a level of foul rule for hulls (Craft Risk Management Standards).

Exclusion pests

Background

36. The pests listed below are not known to be present in the Hawke’s Bay region. Preventing their establishment is considered to be of benefit to the region. These pests have the potential to establish in Hawke’s Bay and may cause adverse effects on production/economic wellbeing and environmental values. These pests can displace other species, impacting pasture and native species. The impact to production or native ecosystems warrant the prevention of their establishment in the region. Declaring these species as pests under the Exclusion programme gives Biosecurity staff powers under the Biosecurity Act to respond to reports or vector pathways.

Proposed changes

37. Inclusion of the following pests in the Exclusion programme:

37.1. Alligator weed

37.2. Marshwort

37.3. Sabella

37.4. Senegal tea

37.5. Spartina

37.6. Styela

37.7. Wallaby

37.8. Yellow bristle grass.

Section of Proposal to complete

38. Low level cost benefit analysis for boundary control pest plants, horticultural pests and good neighbour rules and cost allocation process

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan Timeline

39. A timeline of the proposed RPMP review is outlined below. Council is required to notify the Proposal by March 2018, in order to ensure that the current strategy does not expire on that date. If the current strategy were to expire, council would lose its enforcement powers under the Biosecurity Act until such time as a replacement plan became operative.

*Date*	*Committee*	*Task/Decision*
November 2017	Environment & Services Committee	Consider an early draft of the Proposed RPMP and recommend adoption to Council subject to any changes agreed at the meeting
January 2018	Council	Council adopts Proposed RPMP for public notification and consultation, including any changes agreed at the meeting
February 2018		Proposed RPMP publicly notified
February 2018	Regional Planning Committee and Maori Committee	Update on RPMP process and release of proposal
March 2018		Submissions close
April 2018	Hearings Committee	Public submissions considered by Council Hearings Committee and Hearings Committee agree recommendations to Council.
May 2018	Council	Revised RPMP adopted by Council.
June 2018		Advice on Council decision provided to all submitters who then have 15 days to refer to the Environment Court.

Decision Making Process

40. 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:

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

40.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation.

40.1. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the management of pests for the protection of primary production or biodiversity values or any person with a pest listed in the Proposed RPMP on their property.

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

40.3. 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 Proposal” staff report

1.2. approves the proposal to revoke and replace the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy 2013

1.3. agrees that the amendments made to finalise the Regional Pest Management Plan prior to Council’s adoption will include:

1.3.1. completion of the cost benefit analysis and cost allocation process to comply with s 100D(5) and s 70 of the Biosecurity Act 1993

1.3.2. completion of the cost benefit analysis and cost allocation process to satisfy that the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan meets the requirements of s 71 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council, at its meeting on 31 January 2018:

2.1. Adopts the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, inclusive of amendments agreed at the 15 November Environment and Services Committee meeting, for public consultation.

Authored by:

Mark Mitchell

Principal Biosecurity Officer

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇨1

Proposed Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan 2018-2038

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 November 2017

Subject: National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry

Reason for Report

1. New regulations for the Plantation Forestry sector come into effect on 1 May 2018. The National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) are regulations made under the Resource Management Act and prevail over the Regional Resource Management Plan.

2. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has a comparatively permissive approach to the management of forestry activities as compared to other regional councils. As a result of the NES-PF, a significant number of forestry activities will now be subject to resource consents and other requirements.

3. Our current resourcing is not scaled to take on the requirements for these new regulations. Staff are seeking increased resourcing in the medium-term through the Long Term Plan (LTP) process. In the meantime, there is crucial preparatory work that needs to be done to equip HBRC and our forestry stakeholders ahead of the May 2018 date.

4. There are significant economic, environmental, and reputational risks if the short or medium term resourcing of the roll-out of these new regulations is not done properly.

5. The purpose of this paper is to provide background to Council on the NES-PF and to outline the resourcing requirements for 2017/18 and beyond. This paper provides councilors with:

5.1. an overview of the NES-PF regulations

5.2. an indication of the impacts of these regulations on the region and HBRC

5.3. an outline of resources required in addition to the LTP resources being sought

5.4. key risks.

The National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry

6. The National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) is a new set of regulations that manage the environmental risks and effects of plantation forestry operations and ensure consistency of district and regional council rules.

7. The NES-PF covers eight core planation forestry activities that have potential environmental effects:

7.1. Afforestation

7.2. Pruning and thinning to waste

7.3. Earthworks

7.4. River crossings

7.5. Forestry quarrying for road material (within a plantation forest or for operation of a forest on adjacent land)

7.6. Harvesting

7.7. Mechanical land preparation

7.8. Replanting.

8. The NES-PF requires forest owners and managers to engage with authorities on a regular basis to notify them of these activities and, according to risk, to gain resource consent for them. Requirements in the NES-PF are intended to drive positive environmental gains. It will ensure that all operators are conducting activities in ways that meet industry best practice.

9. Regional councils across the country are required to implement these new rules by 1 May 2018. This necessitates review and alignment of regional plans and coastal plans with the NES-PF, establishment of consent review and compliance processes, and increased engagement and communication between the forestry sector and regional councils.

10. Attachment 1 provides some visual aids from the Ministry for Primary Industries about these new regulations. Attachment 2 provides a copy of the new regulations.

Impacts on HBRC and Forestry operations

11. Forestry operators will soon be required to notify council of their intensions, submit detailed management plans (if requested), and gain resource consent for a range of forest activities, among other things. Based on initial conversations with the sector, this may start as early as March 2018. HBRC must be ready to process notifications and consent applications and prepare stakeholders for their new compliance requirements.

12. Implementing these requirements requires increased activity across the organisation including (but not limited to) from the land management, consents, compliance, and strategic development teams. Attachment 3 provides a more detailed description of potential roles across the organisation. Attachment 4 shows a draft process diagram for regional council activities.

13. Teams across HBRC do not currently have the required resources to ensure the Industry and the Council are adequately prepared for the NES-PF coming into effect. For example, there are few processes in place to manage the communication, implementation, data and GIS systems, or compliance requirements for the new NES-PF regulations.

Resources required

14. There is a need for a range of resourcing allocations across HBRC and its functions to implement the NES-PF.

15. Short term resourcing (2017/18) is presented for Council information today. Medium and long term resourcing requires a decision by Council as part of the LTP process.

16. It is assumed that the more time and resources are provided upfront (i.e. 1 Jan 2018- 1 July 2019) the greater upskilling of potential new resources and assurance of efficient processes there will be. This will reduce resource requirements in the medium and long term.

17. HBRC staff have estimated that a total of 3-4 FTEs will be required in the consents and compliance teams to prepare for the NES-PF between 1 Jan 2018 and 1 May 2018. Of these, three FTEs can be allocated through existing allocations and budgets as a result of parental leave and secondments. The principal focus of these duties will be in developing appropriate resource consent templates and preparing guidance for applicants and staff.

18. Additional 1 Jan 2018 to 1 May 2018 FTE estimates for other teams (such as the Land Management and Client Services teams) will be provided to Council during the Committee Meeting.

19. For the purpose of the Long Term Plan, the most significant additional resources will be required in the area of Compliance Monitoring. However, there will also be additional resourcing needs for consents and land management teams. There will be a specific need for technical support to assess consent applications and provide advice to stakeholders. An assumption has been made that the flexibility provided by the parental leave and the secondments is no longer available and that full financial provision needs to be made for increased staff. The total number of staff estimated for this function is 4 additional FTEs.

Key risks

20. Without resourcing now there will likely be a misinformed and substandard industry response. This will:

20.1. require increased HBRC resources to ensure industry compliance with the new regulations

20.2. result in negative environmental effects

20.3. negatively impact HBRC’s and the forest industry’s reputation, and

20.4. limit the economic activities of the forestry sector.

21. There will be a need to resource the implementation of the NES-PF within the LTP as well. Adequate resourcing is critical for enabling Council to meet its statutory obligation to implement the National Environment Standard for Plantation Forestry

22. The roll out of NES-PF is occurring at the same time as Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs) becoming legally required by those in the Tukituki catchment. This places significant additional pressure on the consents, compliance, data management, and land management teams to process both Farm Environmental Management Plans and Forestry Management Plans associated with the NES-PF. Without additional resourcing, neither regulatory requirement will be met adequately.

23. The new regulations act as a regulatory barrier to the establishment of plantation forestry on highly erodible land. Implementation of, and compliance with, these new regulations partially determines what the right tree, in the right place, at the right time could be. Aligning these new regulations with the management of fresh water quality and climate change mitigation and/or adaptation activities is paramount.

24. It is also important to recognize that LTP resourcing requests to date have been made with an incomplete picture of workload, and that understanding of resourcing is evolving with understanding of what the NES-PF means for each group. A conservative approach to LTP planning steps will be advisable regarding this resourcing.

Decision Making Process

25. 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

1. Receives and notes the “National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry” staff report and attachments.

2. Notes that for the balance of the 2017-18 year resourcing for National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry implementation will be managed within current budgets.

3. Notes that additional resources for National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry implementation will be incorporated as part of the development of the 2018-28 Long-Term Plan.

Authored by:

Madeline Hall

Senior Land Management Advisor

James Powrie

Team Leader Natural Assets

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	Visual Aids from Ministry for Primary Industries	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	NES-PF Regulations	Under Separate Cover
⇩3	HBRC Roles and Responsibilities
⇩4	Draft Process Diagram

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 November 2017

Subject: Review of HBRC Role in Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Reason for Report

1. This information paper provides the Committee with an overview of an externally commissioned report that suggests potential Climate Change adaptation and mitigation content for HBRC’s Long Term Plan.

Background

2. The Council’s current 2015-25 Long Term Plan includes a Level of Service Statement that “HBRC will help the community prepare for the future and increase community resilience to climate change.” One of several performance measures included in the Plan for this is to “Complete a report on the contribution that Council activities make towards climate change adaption and mitigation, and number of sectors that Council supports to promote or influence reductions in carbon emissions and climate change adaptation.”

3. In addition to overseeing the production of this report, the 2015-25 Long Term Plan required Council staff to “Proactively seek initiatives through which HBRC is able to influence or promote a reduction in regional carbon emissions.” Staff sought to build this action into HBRC’s contribution to the 2016 Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy with Action 5.5 of the Strategy’s Action Plan to “Support natural resource users to identify and proactively manage business risks and opportunities arising from a changing climate.” This action is HBRC led but is supported by the Ministry for Primary Industries.

4. Earlier this year, the Council commissioned an external advisor (Ekos) to produce the report envisaged in the current Long Term Plan and provide advice on climate change mitigation and adaptation activities to include in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. This advice has informed several business cases being prepared for the Council to consider in the development of the new Long Term Plan. The Council will hold a workshop on 11 December 2018 to discuss this report further.

5. The external report provides an overview of the science and challenges of climate change adaptation and mitigation, outlines HBRC’s current activities in this space and suggests potential future solutions. The executive summary from the report is attached for the Committee to review.

6. The report is designed to prompt discussions as to the role of HBRC and offers the opportunity to create a set of objectives for implementing solutions. There will also need to be significant additional work to flesh out implementation requirements as well as community and stakeholder engagement as part of the finalisation of the 2018-28 Long Term.

7. The solutions in the report focus on the development of different policy tools that could encourage the region’s transition to a low-emissions economy and increase its resilience to climate change. The report preferences the establishment of market-linked or market-like tools to attract diverse sources of funding for programmes.

8. One such programme could be an Indigenous Forest Carbon Programme that would provide water quality, biodiversity, emissions reduction, soils management, and climate resilience benefits across the region. This would be in addition to a number of HBRC’s current activities that have significant climate change mitigation or adaptation relevance.

9. Bringing this and other potential programmes to fruition will likely take time and increased resourcing within HBRC.

10. HBRC staff will continue to work with Ekos and other external experts to further develop these ideas for Council consideration.

Decision Making Process

11. 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 “Review of HBRC Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation” staff report and provides staff with direction on areas for further exploration in the development of the Long Term Plan.

Authored by:

Madeline Hall

Senior Land Management Advisor

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

HB Climate Resilience Report - Executive Summary.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 15 November 2017

Subject: Hotspot/Freshwater Improvement Projects Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on progress on the Freshwater Improvement/Hotspots environmental projects.

FIF/Hotspot funded projects

FIF: Lake Tūtira (Te Waiū oTūtira – The Milk of Tūtira), HBRC partnership with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust

2. We are working through Stage 2 of the Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF) funding process with the Ministry for the Environment. This involves completing a work programme and a detailed annual plan for the first year. When the Ministry is satisfied with the detail we will progress to signing the Deed of Funding, they tell us this will be no earlier than early-to-mid January 2018. No project work can commence before the Deed is signed.

3. Our plan, as part of our original application in May 2017, was to install an air curtain into Lake Waikōpiro in the first year of the project. This was to be our test case before installing one into Tūtira, on a much larger scale. We were advised that the aerator should be installed during the winter months before the lake increases in temperature, causing stratification which will not allow the oxygen mixing process to be effective. Therefore in August 2017 we saw an opportunity to install the air curtain before the end of September. We seized this opportunity, rather than waiting another year, in the hope that it would have a positive impact on the lake and the community. If this works, we will be able to replicate this in Tūtira sooner (winter 2018) than originally planned, thus getting us closer to our project purpose: “to restore the mauri of Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro, making a place that families can happily return to, and where children can swim”.

4. The results to date have been very encouraging. Waikōpiro Lake is now well mixed and oxygen in the bottom water is increasing. We need to watch the trout population closely, because the entire lake may reach temperatures that become problematic for trout. The ceratium bloom (not toxin producing) that had occurred before the air curtain was installed has not abated. The real test of the ability of the air curtain to keep the lake well mixed will be during hot summer spells. Comparing dynamics in Waikōpiro with Tūtira this summer will be a good test of whether keeping these lakes well mixed will help prevent algal blooms. We should therefore have a better understanding on performance in April/May 2018, and at this time have confidence in proceeding (or not) with an installation in Tūtira.

5. Unfortunately, as the air curtain installation project started before signing the Deed MfE will not include this in the FIF fund and we need to remove this cost of our project budget.

6. MfE will ‘consider’ payment for the air curtain through Tūtira Mai Nga Iwi project funds (another HBRC and MTT Tūtira collaboration project, funded through the Te Mana o Te Wai fund, provided by MfE). As long as this is agreed to by iwi and hapū and signed off by the Governance Group, to include the installation of the air curtain as part of the ‘short term priorities’ identified in Year 1. Due to existing project commitments, it is unlikely that this project can cover all air curtain expenses, but it will be able to cover most. We are working on this now with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust.

FIF: Whakaki Lake (Sunshine, wetlands and bees will revitalise the taonga of Whakaki)

7. We are working through Stage 2 of the funding process with the Ministry for the Environment. This involves completing a work programme and a detailed annual plan for the first year. When the Ministry is satisfied with the detail we will progress to signing the Deed of Funding, they tell us this will be no earlier than early-to-mid January 2018. No project work can commence before the Deed is signed.

8. There have been tensions in the community due to the recent flooding of the lake onto neighboring land. To maintain lake levels and avoid flooding our engineers are designing and costing a weir solution. The weir would increase the lake level at which the sea closes the opening. For a weir to be useful for protection against low lake levels, it needs to retain enough water in the lake to provide insurance against extended periods without significant rainfall. This was not in the original plan for this FIF project. MfE recognize this as an urgent priority for everyone involved. MfE will allow us to deviate from our original plan to include the weir, although no more funding can be allocated to this project.

9. Project Manager, Nicolas Caviale-Delzescaux, has been working extensively to adjust the five year plan to cater for the expense of the weir, without eliminating any of the original objectives of our plan.

10. Currently we are in the process of securing the land for the recirculating wetland. It is the most challenging milestone at this stage. Discussions have already taken place with the Trust members of the land of interest. Support from Richard Brooking (Whakaki Lake Trust Chair) and Nui McKay (Nga Whenua Rahui) have been critical to the success of these discussions. The trustees of the specific block are interested and a meeting this month should finalise this. If we can’t secure the land to build the recirculating wetland we won’t be able to effectively remove the sediment from the lake bed, therefore one of the main projects’ objective wouldn’t be met and the algae blooms might continue.

11. MPI has been running workshops with the community to establish a long term vision for the catchment. These have been well attended and supported by the community with good outcomes and engagement. The highlight was that the community is excited about the school renovation as an education training hub for the tamariki.

12. Manuka planting will be establish early November as a trial for the Manuka for honey project. The Rahui channel fencing project has been approved by land owner and will be completed 2019.

13. Although there are strong interrelationships between Whakaki hapu and Iwitea hapu, there is conflict between existing land management approaches taken at the west and eastern ends of the lake. Representatives from both marae are on the governing and project groups to help mitigate and manage any potential or perceived conflicts of interest that arise here. The same conflicts may exist within the catchment group and will be mitigated in a similar fashion, and by commitment to an MOU that will help with this.

Hot Spot only Funded

14. The environmental ‘Hot Spot’ funding of $1m is to accelerate action on six hot spots during 2017-18. Initially this was equally divided across the identified hot spots for the year, with the exception of our FIF commitment of $200,000 for Tūtira and $200,000 for Whakaki. This was changed after further assessment of existing work programmes and what was beneficial to the areas and would provide rate payers the best bang for their buck.

Ahuriri

Tukituki

Karamu

Marine

Tūtira (FIF)

Whakaki (FIF)

$200,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

- for 4 years

$200,000

– for 5 years

Hot Spot: Lake Whatuma & Tukituki Catchment

15. The Makirikiri restoration project (just outside of Takapau) offers great potential as a demonstration site for riparian management, for engaging the local community and aligning regional water quality objectives with wider mana whenua values. It provides a good conduit to build relationships with mana whenua which is a good step towards collaboration as required under PC6.

16. We have completed the first round of weed control including the removal of over-mature willow trees and other weed infestations. Site visits have occurred since the weed removal to plan the fencing, further weed control, planting and path design. With the removal of the willows the stream has moved slightly so in order to complete the path, gabion baskets will need to be placed at two of the river bends. The site has been mapped using a drone and these images are being used as the basis for the planting plan. Stony dry areas, steep risky areas, and areas of good soil are being marked up.

17. From here plant numbers and people hours can be established. These will be discussed with the marae and then taken back to the community including the primary school and kura to round up volunteers.

18. The remaining hot spot funding will be spent on the establishment of a wetland. There are currently two possible sites for this to occur. One is focused on P/sediment retention and can probably be completed with the remaining budget. The other is potentially a nitrate removal wetland and may be a staged project. We are in the process of working with Council scientists to assess current nitrate levels before making a decision. Once started either of these options will be straight forward, because they are both flat and can be planted by contractors.

19. As an extension of these projects we will be completing additional work at Whatuma, to be completed this financial year.

Hot Spot: Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu (Ahuriri Estuary)

20. We are working with Mana Ahuriri Trust, Napier City Council, Hastings District Council, Department of Conservation, other landowners and businesses in this area to clean up water entering the estuary, remove pests and restore the environment to good health.

21. Ficopomatus removal: To restore water flow between the upper and lower estuary, we (in partnership with Mana Ahuriri Trust) will removing colonies of an invasive marine tubeworm. Starting on Monday 13 November, diggers will be used to remove the worm from areas between the Taipo Stream confluence and the Upper Ahuriri Estuary. Due to tides, we only have a four hour window each day to work in the estuary, therefore we expect this to continue through to the end of week.

22. Land Action Plan: Our Science team are currently gathering data, through point analysis, and characterising the Ahuriri catchment. The outcome will be a list of actions that are required to achieve the largest benefits for sediment and nutrient mitigation within the catchment. An advisor will visit landowners in the catchment and determine areas for farm scale improvement. This will be presented to Council early 2018.

23. Catchment Works: Works on both private and public land to reduce sediment and nutrient input into the catchment waterways and ultimately, the estuary.

24. Integrated Catchment Management Plan: Working with relevant stakeholders this plan is to identify the significant issues for Te Muriwai O Te Whanga, establish a common vision, outline tasks and actions clearly identified for each contributor. Currently the scope of works for this to be successful is being defined.

25. Catchment Hydrology: Further research information is required to better define the water budget, movement and export in this complex and largely managed catchment. For example what are the contaminant pathways? How much healthy freshwater does the estuary need to function? The plan for this is under development.

Hot Spot: Te Karamu

26. After further onsite investigations at Brookvale we were able to reduce the area of planting. This enabled us to support and progress other priority areas within the Karamu catchment.

27. Brookvale Wetland, Mangateretere Stream: Here we propose protection and enhancement of the stream to exclude stock and improve water quality, habitat and biodiversity. This will include: weed control, arboriculture, fencing and riparian planting and showing best practise land management. We will be engaging the community, through involvement of local schools and community meetings. We have met with landowners of the section above Brookvale Road, and they are supportive of our enhancement plans. Site preparation has started. We are currently organising a meeting with adjacent neighbours, to relay our plans and listen to feedback. Planting has been scheduled for Saturday, 16 June 2018.

28. Old Ngaruroro (Karamu-Clive) River: Work has started between Whakatu Railway Bridge and Karamu-Raupare confluence. We have completed weed control of old man’s beard and silver poplar. Over the following months we will be fencing for stock exclusion. Revegetation planting will start in June.

29. Hinetemoa Spring & Awanui Stream: Paki Paki. For this culturally significant site, which is visible as southern entrance to Heretaunga Plains. We are in discussions with landowners to detail plans for enhancement planting and exclude stock from the waterway.

30. Bridge Pa, Karewarewa-Paritua Stream: Stock exclusion on the Karewarewa-Paritua Stream, above Mangaroa Mare and some specimen tree planting. The land owner is keen to progress with a plan for stock exclusion, bridge repair, fencing and tree tidying. The details of this plan are currently being developed.

31. Kahuranaki Stream, Kahuranaki (Te Hauke) Marae: We are working with representatives from the marae. Our plan involves weed control, enhancement planting on tributary to Lake Poukawa and connection to biodiversity priority areas.

Hot Spot: Marine

32. Work with Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group and other stakeholders to scope a hydrodynamic model of Hawke Bay, and investigate subtidal habitats – to build understanding of our coastal habitats and the effects from land.

33. Hydrodynamic model: Working with Cawthron Institute, we are investigating where exactly in Hawke Bay we need to conduct our modelling. To do this we are currently reviewing satellite imagery, which has been recorded daily across 5 years, to identify where the reoccurring problems area are. Once this has been narrowed down, we will create a fine scale model to tell us where the issue are stemming from.

34. Collaborative study with NIWA, MPI and hapū looking at current state Wairoa Hard: A proposal has been drawn up and is currently sitting with MPI for a decision on funding. This will be a multi-year project, which, if successful, will require some funding in future years.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Hotspot/Freshwater Improvement Funding Projects Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Antony Rewcastle

Senior Open Space Development Officer

Jolene Townshend

Project Manager,
Resource Management

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.