Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee

Date: Wednesday 11 April 2018

Time: 9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee meeting held on 21 February 2018

4. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 3

Decision Items

5. HBRC Enforcement Policy Adoption Recommendation to Council 5

6. Process for Awarding HBRC Certificate of Appreciation 7

Information or Performance Monitoring

7. April 2018 Hot Spot/Freshwater Improvement Projects Update 11

8. Whitebait 15

9. Giant Willow Aphid Update 19

10. Cycle Way Update – Mad Mile 21

11. Mangapoike Landslide Update 25

12. Hawke's Bay Marine and Coastal Group Roadmap 33

13. Taine Randell – Forest and Carbon Presentation 10am

14. Zero Carbon 35

15. Summary of Hawke's Bay Territorial Authorities' Key Long Term Plan Proposals 39

16. April 2018 Operational Activities Update 41

17. Discussion of Items Not on the Agenda 49

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

“A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting:

(a) the reason the item is not on the agenda; and

(b) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.”

2. In addition, standing order 9.13 allows “A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.”

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 17:

1.1. Urgent items of Business (supported by tabled CE or Chairpersons’s report)

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: HBRC Enforcement Policy Adoption Recommendation to Council

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with the HBRC Enforcement Policy as amended from feedback provided by the Committee at the meeting on 21 February 2018, to enable a recommendation to Council for adoption.

Discussion

2. At its meeting 21 February 2018 the Environment and Services Committee reviewed a draft of the HBRC Enforcement Policy document.

3. As part of providing assurance of HBRC’s decision making process, the policy outlines the principles and guidelines that we apply and adhere to. This includes transparency, consistency, fairness, proportional and evidence based approach, laws and ethics, accountability, targeted compliance and responsive and effective enforcement solutions.

4. Changes sought at the 21 February Committee meeting, and now included for consideration are:

4.1. Insertion of references to Council’s Strategic Vision and its RMA plans, and the outcomes sought by those documents

4.2. Insertion of a statement of intent for the policy that reflects HBRC’s intent to encourage positive behaviour change in the first instance, and to ensure the highest levels of compliance

4.3. Insertion of reference to the role of political input into enforcement processes

4.4. Clarification of the role the public can take in notifying HBRC of environmental breaches

4.5. Minor formatting changes.

5. This document will be a valuable reference tool for members of the public, Council staff Councillors, and Environmental Officers. Once it is adopted by Council it will be made available on the HBRC website.

Decision Making Process

6. 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:

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

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

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

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

6.5. 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 “HBRC Enforcement Policy” staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2. Adopts the April 2018 HBRC Enforcement Policy as provided.

Authored by:

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Attachment/s

⇨1

April 2018 HBRC Enforcement Policy

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Process for Awarding HBRC Certificate of Appreciation

Reason for Report

1. At the Environment and Services Committee meeting held on 21 February 2018 staff were requested to report back on a process to award, acknowledge and thank people in the community for their efforts in helping Council to achieve positive outcomes for the environment.

2. It is acknowledged that Council does support environmental action in education through our community engagement, and also acknowledges environmental leadership in dairy farming through our nationally unique annual Dairy Compliance Awards. In addition to this the Council sponsors the annual East Coast Ballance Farm Environment Awards and is actively involved in the judging of these awards, and periodically supports regional projects for recognition at the national Green Ribbon Awards.

3. Research was carried out through the regional sector group as to what other Councils are doing in this space and this revealed that Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) is the only regional council that hosts any formal environment awards process of its own. Taranaki was broadly used as a template for this suggested process, although in order to avoid overlap with existing initiatives and to minimise additional costs to the Council, an annual awards ‘gala’ style event with sponsors and monetary prizes (as is undertaken by TRC) is not recommended.

4. It is suggested that Council create three categories for nomination by Councillors being:

4.1. Te Taiao me te Pakihi - Environmental Leadership in Business: Recognises business or local authorities that demonstrate kaitiakitanga, innovation or efficiency, or an ongoing commitment to environmental best practice.

4.2. Environmental Leadership in Land Management: Recognises land users who are committed to environmental stewardship and sustainability in their meat, fibre, forestry or other land use operations.

4.3. Environmental Action in the Community: Recognises not-for-profit organisations or individuals that are taking action to protect or enhance the environment, or are increasing understanding of environmental issues.

5. It is also suggested that nominations are called for from Councillors at the Environmental and Services Committee meetings in February and September each year using the following guidelines for nomination.

5.1. The project or activity must:

5.1.1. Make a practical contribution to the sustainable management of Hawke’s Bay’s natural resources or increase understanding and bring about change on environmental issues

5.1.2. Be sustainable over time and not require ongoing subsidy which is larger than the benefit to the community

5.1.3. Be current, ongoing or near completion

5.1.4. Be carried out in the Hawke’s Bay region

ALSO

5.1.5. Previous winners are eligible for nomination after a minimum of five years

5.1.6. Any individual or organisation nominated should be considered suitable to promote the integrity and good reputation of the awards.

6. Once nominees are agreed then the acknowledgement is made at Council meetings in April and November each year with the recipient, family and friends being invited to attend morning or afternoon tea and the award being presented by the Council Chair.

7. The suggested award could be a framed botanical print including a plaque in recognition of service to the environment.

8. This suggested approach effectively has councillors acting as the ‘judges’ with all nominees being awarded recognition. This is based on the presumption that councillors are well placed to bring forward nominees given the nature of their ongoing engagement with the community as elected representatives of constituencies. An alternative approach would be to call for nominations from the public and then a judging, selection or drafting process would likely be required. In light of the resourcing implications of this alternative it is not recommended as the proposed approach would deliver the same level of benefit for less overall investment.

Financial and Resource Implications

9. The approach proposed in this paper can be accommodated within existing governance and communications resources. A more formal event would require reprioritisation of existing budgets.

Decision Making Process

10. 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:

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

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

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

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons who may have a role

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Process for Awarding HBRC Certificate of Appreciation” 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 under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2. Creates three categories for nomination to recognise environmental stewardship, being:

2.2.1. Te Taiao me te Pakihi - Environmental Leadership in Business: Recognises business or local authorities that demonstrate kaitiakitanga, innovation or efficiency, or an ongoing commitment to environmental best practice.

2.2.2. Environmental Leadership in Land Management: Recognises land users who are committed to environmental stewardship and sustainability in their meat, fibre, forestry or other land use operations.

2.2.3. Environmental Action in the Community: Recognises no-for-profit organisations or individuals that are taking action to protect or enhance the environment, or are increasing understanding of environmental issues.

2.3. Calls for nominations to the above categories from Councillors at the Environment and Services Committee held in February and September each year with the Award being presented to the recipient at the April and November Regional Council meetings with a morning or afternoon tea event.

Authored by:

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

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 11 April 2018

Subject: April 2018 Hot Spot/Freshwater Improvement Projects Update

Reason for Report

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

Background

2. The environmental ‘Hot Spot’ funding of $1m is to accelerate action on six hot spots during 2017-18.

Ahuriri	Tukituki	Karamu	Marine	Tutira (FIF)	Whakaki (FIF)
$200,000	$100,000	$150,000	$150,000	$200,000 4 years	$200,000 5 years

Freshwater Improvement Fund: Lake Tūtira (Te Waiū oTūtira, The Milk of Tūtira), HBRC partnership with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust

3. The Project is now live. The Deed was officially countersigned by MfE on 22 March 2018. Since then both the Project Team and Project Governance Group have met with a focus on project objectives, activities and timeframes.

4. Our first deliverable is creating an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) with the community. A working group met to outline a framework for the ICMP. Contractor Billy Brough has begun work on the ICMP, and we anticipate to have this completed by the end of August.

5. Land Science have started analysing the Tūtira Lake catchment to identify high risk areas for sediment loss. This work is to be completed before the end of May. The results will feed into both the ICMP and Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMP’s).

6. By the end of May existing FEMP’s will be reviewed and templates created for the remainder of the Tūtira catchment.

7. By June a process will be created for the allocation of funds in the Subsidy Scheme.

8. The re-connection of the Papakiri Stream is dependent on a meeting request with key B-Block Landowners (Northern end of the Lake). By the end of May, we will know whether the re-connection of the Papakiri is achievable within the project timeframe (scheduled to be completed before the end of June).

Freshwater Improvement Fund: Whakaki Lake (Sunshine, wetlands and bees will revitalise the taonga of Whakaki), HBRC partnership with Whakaki Lake Trust

9. The proposed additions (Waikatuku alignment and weir) to our FIF stage two application have been approved by the Minister for the Environment, subject to Council securing all consents prior to project commencement. We require five consents across three project deliverables.

Deliverable	Year	Consents required
Waikatuku alignment	Year 1: March 2018-June 2018	Water take diversion consent
Weir	Year 2: July 2018-June 2019	Land use structure consent
Recirculating wetland	Year 2: July 2018-June 2019	Surface water take consent, Disturbance consent, Discharge contaminants to water consent

10. Prior to obtaining these consents, we planned to work with the community to refine the design and delivery of our project deliverables. Our project budget included $67,600, across five years, for community engagement. $12,500 of this is for Year One (4 months), as we wanted to invest a significant amount of time in the early stages of the project to work closely with the community. Unfortunately these consenting conditions make this difficult, as MfE funding is not guaranteed until a deed of funding has been signed by both parties; noting any expenses incurred before this are not eligible for reimbursement.

11. MfE acknowledge the additional funding condition will result in a delayed commencement of the project, and they are happy to work with us to extend this Stage 2 timeframe. Currently we are working on how to progress with Stage 2.

12. On 14 April, the Whakaki Lake Trust will be holding a hui with the community and Iwitea to discuss ways forward to continue working with us on this project.

Hot Spot: Tukituki River

Tukituki $100k	Project Lead	6,167 plants (approx)	1.57km fencing
$69k - Makirikiri restoration	Nicola McHaffie	2,200	530m
$29.5k - Hunt wetland	Joanne Hales	3,967	40m
$1.5k - Flood fencing demonstration	Brendan Powell		1km

13. The Makirikiri restoration project. We have completed the first and second rounds of weed control including the removal of over-mature willow trees, and other weeds infestations in particular blackberry. Fencing has been completed on the site and contracts are underway for the planting. A whakawaatea hosted by the local marae occurred 11 February 2018 with councilors from both HBRC and CHBDC attending. HBRC are helping to run visits with school groups to the site and are liaising with the marae and the community to round up volunteers for the planting. Next steps: Works Group to begin site preparation for the limestone path.

14. Hunt wetland project is to restore a hectare of wetland, situated alongside the Takapau Ormondville Road, back to native plants. Currently this is area is in rank grass with minimal weed problems. The first of the two stage spot spraying has occurred so long and dense grass begins to break down in preparation for planting in the winter. The willows and broom on the site have been removed, fencing and gate access for vehicles and pedestrians have been erected and a pull over area created. Educational signage will be erected at the site to describe the plants and the water quality benefits of a wetland.

15. Flood fencing demonstration behind Craggy Range. This project demonstrates a flood fencing option for areas where permanent fencing are unsuitable and are repeatedly wiped out by floods. The new fence was installed on 21 March and consists of flexible fiberglass standards and biodegradable polywire.

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

Ahuriri $200k. Project Lead: Anna Madarasz-Smith

$40k Ficopomatus removal

$20k Ahuriri Catchment Land Action Plan for sediment and nutrient control identifies high erosion risk land within the catchment. (Action completed)

$100k Catchment works

$40k Catchment Hydrology

16. Ficopomatus removal: To restore water flow between the upper and lower estuary, we (in partnership with Mana Ahuriri Trust) removed 216 tonnes of invasive marine tubeworm from the estuary.

17. Catchment works, identified through the Ahuriri Catchment Land Action Plan, focus on landslide erosion (the major long-term source of sediment) and streambank erosion (the regular and short-term source). We are implementing erosion control measures, establishing wetland and riparian filters and livestock exclusion from waterways.

18. The recent flood has caused damages to some of the properties we are working on. As these damages are a priority to fix, and will add cost to the farmers, we have been working with them to revise our plans. This should not make a significant difference to the programme.

Te Whanganui-a-Orotu

Project lead: Anna Madarasz-Smith

Plants

Fencing

Budget

14 properties in Ahuriri Catchment

5,575

(4,500 native / 1125 exotic)

7.1km

$100k

19. Catchment Hydrology: Further research information is required to better define the water budget, movement and export in this complex and largely managed catchment. What are the contaminant pathways? How much healthy freshwater does the estuary need to function. This is being scoped, preliminary report due 9 April 2018.

Hot Spot: Te Karamū

Karamū Project lead: Antony Rewcastle	10,725 plants 10,700 native / 25 exotic	1.65 km fencing	Budget $150,000
06-00 Opaka, Karamū-Clive River	1000	155m	$12,500
16-50 Brookvale wetland enhancement, Mangateretere Stream	8000	500m	$90,000
29-00 Paki Paki enhancement, Hinetemoa Springs and Awanui Stream	1000	300m	$12,500
35-00 Bridge Pa fencing, Karewarewa-Paritu Stream	25	700m	$20,000
40-00 Kahurānaki (Te Hauke) Marae planting	700	-	$15,000

20. Opaka, Old Ngaruroro (Karamu-Clive) River, left bank above Whakatu Railway Bridge. Old man’s beard control completed. Completion of silver poplar control and survey in progress. Fencing for stock exclusion and revegetation planting to be completed.

21. Brookvale wetland – Mangateretere Stream. Protection and enhancement of the stream to exclude stock and improve water quality, habitat and biodiversity and demonstrate best practice land management. Arboriculture work completed. Weed control in progress. Fencing scheduled for April. Community planting day scheduled for 16 June 2018.

22. Paki Paki enhancement - Hinetemoa Spring, Awanui Stream. Protection and enhancement of the waterway to exclude stock and improve water quality, habitat and biodiversity for this culturally significant site, which is visible as the southern entrance to Heretaunga Plains. Fencing and revegetation enhancement planting in progress.

23. Paritua/Kārewarewa Stream enhancement, Bridge Pa. Protection and enhancement of the waterway to exclude stock and improve water quality on the Karewarewa-Paritua Stream, above Mangaroa Marae. Tree work and fencing completed. Enhancement planting scheduled for June 2018.

24. Kahurānaki (Te Hauke) Marae, Kahurānaki Stream. Working with representatives from the marae to produce plans for weed control and enhancement planting on a tributary to Lake Poukawa, and connection to biodiversity priority areas. Willow removal complete, weed control in progress, planting scheduled for June 2018.

Hot Spot: Marine

Marine $150k	Project Leads
$40k Hydrodynamic model of Hawke Bay	Oliver Wade
$110k Collaborative study: Wairoa Hard	Anna Madarasz-Smith

25. A Collaborative study with NIWA, MPI and hapu looking at current state Wairoa Hard. This study will use the NIWA vessel Ikatere to undertake multibeam echo sounder to define the extent of hard substrate and potential habitats within the area. NIWA have committed $35k of vessel time to the study, Ministry for Primary Industries $25k, with the remaining $110k being funded by the HBRC Hotspot fund. This 10 day mapping study is scheduled for April 2018, with further work to be defined with PTSGs in the area.

26. Hydrodynamic model of Hawke Bay: HBRC are working with model providers to understand various options and create a scope of works. Port of Napier have agreed to provide us with their input files. They are preparing this content for us.

27. Focus areas for modelling: Cawthron Research Institute have completed their data analysis and are working on a report for HBRC, expected end of May.

28. Boundary Conditions: Currently MetOcean are generating a quote to provide HBRC with existing boundary conditions information they have of the Hawke’s Bay.

29. Sampling Plan: We have received two batches of water samples from GNS and NIWA. These are currently being analysed at Hill Laboratory, Hamilton. We expect results in April.

Decision Making Process

30. 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 “April 2018 Hot Spot/Freshwater Improvement Projects Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Te Kaha Hawaikirangi

Environmental Officer

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Antony Rewcastle

Senior Open Space Development Officer

Jolene Townshend

Project Manager, Resource Management

Oliver Wade

Scientist

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

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 11 April 2018

Subject: WhiteBAIT

Reason for Report

1. This report is in response to a request from Council to provide up to date science, research and information on the policy/regulatory framework around management and potential causes of stock depletion of whitebait species.

Background

2. The New Zealand ‘whitebait’ fishery typically involves 5 species of native, migratory galaxias. The 5 species are inanga, koaro, banded kokopu, shortjaw kokopu and giant kokopu.

3. For all 5 species, the adult stage is spent in freshwater but the 3-6 month larval stage is typically spent in the ocean. The transparent juveniles returning to freshwater are the target of the whitebait fishery. Their migratory life history means different habitats are required for different life stages, and all of these habitats need to be protected in order for the species to flourish.

4. Whitebait runs appear to have drastically reduced since European colonisation, with early anecdotes describing whitebait being used as fertiliser.

5. It is difficult to assess the status of the whitebait fishery, however, because official catch records are not collected and the fish species involved are not estimated in a robust fashion. But, it seems likely that there used to be a lot more whitebait around.

6. Most common hypotheses to explain their decline around New Zealand relate to habitat alteration, swamp drainage, restricted access to suitable habitat, competition with and predation by introduced species, and overfishing.

Management Roles

7. The whitebait fishery is managed by the Department of Conservation as a recreational fishery. No license is required and there are no catch limits, but restrictions on gear and fishing effort are used to create equal opportunities to catch whitebait. Restrictions include a limited season; fishing only allowed during daylight hours; a need for the individual to attend their net; and restrictions on waterway obstruction. There are some no-take rivers (akin to whitebait reserves) on the West Coast of the South Island. All of the restrictions are designed to give fish an opportunity to escape, but it is difficult to assess whether the measures are effective because few data are collected.

8. Although whitebait is managed as a recreational fishery, there are no laws to prevent individuals selling fish. Tonnes of whitebait are sold each year by individuals in some parts of New Zealand (e.g. Southwest Fiordland and the West Coast of the South Island). MPI regulate the food safety aspect of catching and processing whitebait for sale. But there is no authority for MPI to regulate the fishery component of the whitebait (e.g. through the quota management system).

9. By contrast, MPI manages the commercial freshwater eel fishery (shortfin and longfin eels) in a quota management system, as well as placing catch limits on recreational anglers. So eels present an example of another group of native freshwater fish targeted by fishing interests, but the eel fishery is managed in a more formal manner in comparison to whitebait.

10. Another contrasting example is salmonids, a group of exotic freshwater fish species, strictly managed by Fish and Game. Salmonids in New Zealand include are brown and rainbow trout and salmon species that are managed as recreational species, with a very strong focus on quantitative fishery management, with tight restrictions around seasons, gear and catch limits, as well as active stocking programmes. Fish and Game also act as a strong lobby group for protection of salmonid habitat.

11. According to the New Zealand Conservation Authority, the whitebait fishery may benefit from a tighter monitoring and regulatory framework, and they requested DOC to consider this in 2017. But given that whitebaiting is a quintessential part of kiwi culture, interfering with its present status may be unpopular.

12. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) does not feature in the management of the whitebait fishery directly. HBRC manages whitebait stands, because they are instream structures that require a consent. This gives HBRC no direct power over fishing regulations, but probably means HBRC has the most formal relationship with a large group of whitebaiters of any of the agencies. HBRC also have clear obligations around protecting habitat, maintaining the life supporting capacity of waterways and preventing/mitigating barriers to fish migration, with these actions indirectly impacting whitebait.

Issues for concern

13. Sediment is a strong stressor on all life history stages. Larvae are visual feeders, and suspended sediment in Hawke Bay decreases their feeding efficiency and potentially decreases growth and survival. Juveniles actively avoid turbid (muddy) water, indicating a preference for streams with less suspended sediment in them. The adult stage of the 5 different species occupy different habitats, but a reduction in fine sediment is likely to benefit all of them. High sediment loads during floods can smother spawning grounds and decrease egg survival.

14. Riparian habitat management is also critical for whitebait species. An experiment by NIWA demonstrated that stream reaches with good riparian habitat (cover and instream woody debris) supported 4 times as many inanga as stream reaches with poor riparian habitat. Proactive measures to increase the length of stream with good riparian habitat will benefit whitebait species.

15. Barriers to fish passage are a major threat to whitebait species because these interrupt migration pathways and prevent individuals reaching suitable habitat. Inanga, the main contributor to the whitebait fishery, is a weak climber and so is particularly susceptible to barriers such as perched culverts. Tide gates and pumping stations are also common in lowland reaches of waterways which is their preferred habitat.

16. It is unknown whether whitebaiting itself is a major threat to whitebait populations.

What can HBRC do?

17. A decrease in hillslope erosion from afforestation should benefit all life stages of the different species, and help enhance the whitebait fishery. Similarly, riparian planting programmes will help increase bank stability, decrease sedimentation as well as improve habitat conditions within streams.

18. Restoring fish passage and protecting and enhancing aquatic habitat, including wetlands, has significant potential to increase whitebait numbers, by essentially increasing the habitat area available and thus the effective population size.

19. Identifying and protecting inanga spawning habitat in upper reaches of estuaries should be a particular focus, and Hawke’s Bay has been pioneering the identification and protection of inanga spawning sites since the Catchment Board days with the involvement of locals such as Hans Rook (retired-Department of Conservation) who is passing his expertise onto tangata whenua. Active programmes at HBRC are helping to continue these efforts. For example, Open Spaces have been identifying spawning areas on HBRC owned land, identifying potential spawning areas has been part of the Cape to City project, and the Joella Brown and Hans Rook have been contracted to provide information on potential inanga spawning areas for the TANK plan change.

20. One optimistic aspect of the whitebait fishery is that it is primarily comprised of inanga, which is an annual species, with individuals taking only 1 year to reach sexual maturity. Restoring access to suitable habitat or enhancing or creating new habitat will increase the carrying capacity of Hawke’s Bay rivers for these species. Protecting and enhancing spawning grounds will maximize spawning success. The short life history of this species will mean population growth can be rapid – and therefore an increase in whitebait numbers should theoretically occur quite quickly after improvements have been made.

21. Although the whitebait life cycle is complicated and current management of the fishery could be considered deficient, there are many things HBRC can and will continue to do to contribute to an increase in whitebait numbers.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

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

Authored by:

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader/Principal Scientist - Water Quality and Ecology

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

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 11 April 2018

Subject: Giant Willow Aphid Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with an update on Council’s response to Giant Willow Aphid infestations on the flood protection scheme assets for the 2017/18 Summer season.

Background

2. The giant willow aphid, which measures 5-6mm, was first sighted and reported in Auckland in December 2013 and quickly spread throughout the North Island and as far south as Clyde in Central Otago. Willows are its only recognised host plant. It taps into the sugar flow in the stem and the pressure of sap through the aphid produces honey dew.

3. Higher than normal numbers of wasps are likely indicators of aphid infestation as they feed on the honey dew. Bees also harvest the honey dew, which can change the characteristics of their honey including raising its melting temperature and causing discoloration. It is difficult not to miss the sight of blackened willows along the rivers. The blackening is sooty mould, which feeds on the honeydew deposited on leaves and branches by the feeding aphids and is denoted as a black layer on the top of the willow branches and leaves.

Scheme Infestation

4. Since Giant Willow Aphid was discovered in our region in 2015, staff have been monitoring and recording the infestations and affected areas. The summer of 2015/2016 was particularly bad with large areas infested both within and outside the flood control scheme areas.

5. In the summer last year (2016/2017) Giant Willow Aphid were evident in all of our major rivers edge protection willows again, but infestations were not as bad as experienced in 2015/16 due to strong winds early in Spring which resulted in a late start to infestations and consequently less of a problem overall and tree health not as badly affected. These trees recovered over spring 2017 and early summer.

6. This summer (2017/2018) Giant Willow Aphid seems to be re-occurring again in all locations with some areas more affected than others. Observations are that the infestations are not nearly as bad as 2015/2016 with aphid numbers on each tree much more dispersed and less numerous than previously. The infestations have appeared later in the season this year, presumably due to similar climate conditions as experienced in 2016/17.

7. Our concern with this particular plant pest is the unknown effects of the longer term impact of the aphid. The concern relates to potential weakening of the trees, particularly around the root holding capacity of the trees, which is a primary requirement for flood control purposes. While the trees are surviving the initial infestation progressive weakening of the trees is being monitored, as experienced with the Sawfly outbreak in early 2000. Work is ongoing with the Willow and Poplar Plant Material Collective looking at solutions to the problem with current advice still to monitor annual experiences and encourage the planting of alternative or resistant species.

8. One area of concern in the HPFCS that we are watching closely is the Ngaruroro right bank Ormond to Carrick Road where last year 2700 willow poles were planted. Most of these poles have some Giant Willow Aphid on them, as do the older willows. To provide additional security to the edge protection works, 1000 Alders will be planted landward of the pole planting. This is in line with current works to strengthen the willow planting with suitable alternative exotic and natives species.

9. There has been a short section with dead willows downstream of Fernhill to Maori Point, although the reason for the dead trees is unknown. At this stage we have no evidence that their demise is due to aphids and is more likely an age and stage issue. This area, will be replanted with willows and it has a good coverage of exotic and native trees and so is of less concern.

10. Giant Willow Aphid have been found throughout the Upper Tukituki scheme but to a much lesser extent above SH50 this year. The main area of infestation is the Tukituki from Rathbones Bridge to Burnside Road on both sides, but again not as bad as previous years. The poles planted this season show no sign of Giant Willow Aphid at all. On the Waipawa River there is evidence of aphids but nowhere as bad as previous years.

Discussion

11. In summary Giant Willow Aphid remains a problem and field staff will continue to monitor and record the extent of the affected areas. Unlike the devastating Willow Sawfly problem where willow trees died on mass, staff are quietly confident at this stage that the willows are coping with the aphid infestation. It is still a waiting game to some extent to see how repeated infestations will affect the health of the trees.

12. Nevertheless, we need to be vigilant and have back-up provisions to maintain the integrity of the flood protection assets. The current levels of service review for the schemes will include more extensive use of groynes that were designed and tested as part of the sawfly remediation works. This will place less reliance on the willows in critical locations.

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 “Giant Willow Aphid Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Cycle Way Update – Mad Mile

Reason for Report

1. To provide Councillors with background information on a significant health and safety issue on a section of the Landscapes ride referred to as the ‘Mad Mile’ and an update on progress finding a solution.

Background

2. HBRC has developed nearly 200km of mostly off road cycle trails since 2009 with Hawke’s Bay being one of the most popular of the twenty-two New Zealand Cycle Trail (NZCT) ‘Great Rides’. They include approximately 185km of mostly off-road trails, owned or managed by HBRC, which is a significant asset to HBRC and the region. The trails have a New Zealand Cycle Trail ‘Great Ride’ status for Grades 1-3, providing the easiest riding experience. It has been estimated that over 600,000 individual trip counts were taken on the trails in 2017, with a mix of local, domestic and international visitors using Hawke’s Bay Trails.

3. Within the Landscapes ride, is a short section referred to as the ‘Mad Mile’ - between River Road and Craggy Range Winery adjacent to Waimarama Road. This section was not able to be constructed off road, as proposed in 2009, due to the lack of land access.

4. As a result cycle trail users must use an on-road section to complete the ‘Tukituki Loop’ - resulting in an experience that is out of context with most other sections of trail, does not meet NZCT’s Great Ride standard, and which is a significant safety risk. The current situation has trail users negotiating a narrow open road (80 km/h) section, with high traffic counts, with very little shoulder in places, on a hill climb/descent that is unsafe and not within the Hawke’s Bay Trails trail grading.

5. A report (February 2015) produced by Hastings District Council outlined issues with this section of trail. Some modifications have been made by HDC to improve safety in the interim:

5.1. Reduce speed limit from 100km/hr to 80km/hr

5.2. Double yellow line for no passing in this area (this reduced the road shoulder)

5.3. Fluoro yellow and black ‘Cyclist’ signage and ‘Share the Road’ signs.

Figure 1. Start of Waimarama Road and of Mad Mile Section

6. While an initial improvement, these measures have proven to be insufficient to the NZCT Inc. Board who requested a temporary closure of this trail section on 17th March 2017 – until a suitable solution is found.

7. The specific trail section, is on Waimarama Road, from River Road/Te Mata Road intersection up and over the crest of the hill and down to Craggy Range Winery off-road paved trail – approximately 2km long.

8. This project’s objective is to build a suitable safe off-road alternative, within NZCT Design standards of Grade 2-3 off road specifications to solve this safety issue and have this section of trail re-opened and remain as part of the Landscape ride and Tukituki loop.

Options considered

9. In 2016 it was suggested to remove a significant section of the Tukituki loop from River Road to Red Bridge to Moore Road (approx. 13km) and build a bridge over the Tukituki River, to link the off-road trails. Feasibility studies indicated a suspension bridge would be in excess of 260m length, which is considerably longer than any other cycle bridge constructed in NZ. It was estimated it would cost between $1.5m-$2m to build. Comparison costs of recent NZ cycle/walking bridges:

9.1. The Waikato River Bridge built in 2016 is 130m long, 3m wide, 18m high and budgeted cost $1.3m – actual cost $2.1m

9.2. The Timber Trail, Maramataha Bridge built in 2012 is 141m long, 2m wide approx. and cost $500k.

10. Due to these challenges and costs it was considered prudent to revisit previous options from HBRC and HDC considered in 2015, these included:

Option 1 Off-road trail adjacent to Tukituki River to connect to existing trail at Craggy Range

Option 2 On-road widening of Waimarama Road

Option 3 Off-road trail Te Mata Peak side Waimarama Road 1300m

Option 4 Bridge and off-road trail to Red Bridge on Tukituki road side only

Option 5 Bridge and off-road trail to connect to existing trail at Moore Road

Option 6 Off-road two way shared path beside Waimarama Road

11. Options 1 and 4 were discounted due to the challenges of achieving landowner approvals.

12. Options 2, 5 and 6 were discounted due to total project costs.

13. Option 3 has been progressed due to a willing landowner negotiation for land purchase, affordable costs and achieving the health and safety objectives and meeting NZCT trail standards.

Option 3

14. Project Solution: Create a dedicated off-road lime sand trail on private land on the Te Mata Peak side of Waimarama Road, linking to the existing off road section of the Landscapes ride. (This follows the existing on road trail but takes users off-road, parallel to road)

15. HBRC has negotiated an arrangement to purchase land from a single landowner beside Waimarama Road, which will be vested as road reserve upon deposit and create a dedicated limesand trail on this road side land. This trail will be above the road, thus linking similar off-road sections and avoiding the dangers of using the road corridor.

16. This preferred solution includes collaborating with Hastings District Council, which will create a connecting off-road trail from opposite River Road to the new proposed section with land easements in place. The new trail exit will connect at the bottom of the hill adjacent to Craggy Range Winery, connecting with the existing paving trail on Waimarama Road.

17. This section of trail needs to comply with NZCT design standards, so will have a steady gradient, be off-road and suitable for all trail users. The construction requires culverts to traverse gullies and a board walk over a natural bog area. A tree-planting plan is included in the design and will help to stabilise land, enhance the ride experience and create a natural bird corridor, as agreed with the landowner.

18. Rest areas will also incorporate appropriate signage covering local and Maori history of the area.

19. Recent controversy and confusion associated with the Craggy Range trail, which is coincidentally in the same area, has provided challenges for progressing the Landscapes trail solution. We currently have an agreed sale and purchase agreement with the landowner, an approved design solution and plans for planting and construction, along with construction commitments. A residual issue to progressing this project is a requirement that staff confirm that governors of HBRC, HDC and Iwi are aware of this project. This paper is to confirm that awareness.

Budget

20. This section of trail is estimated to cost $340,000 with funding committed from HBRC, MBIE, HDC, and Eastern and Central Community Trust. HBRC successfully applied to MBIE for this to be funded as a ‘Priority Project’ due to the NZCT Trail safety requirements and, based on the above project solution, have secured funding for half the cost of this project. HBRC would contribute $85,000.00 to the solution and this funding is provided for in existing 2017-18 budgets.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Cycle Way Update – Mad Mile” staff report.

Authored by:

Vicki Butterworth

Cycle Network Coordinator

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Mangapoike Landslide Update

Reason for Report

1. To update committee on the situation at the Mangapoike landslide, and to identify what actions are proposed in the near future, with a further update of any changed circumstances on this developing activity to be provided on the day.

The Situation

2. On or about 25 February 2018, a landslide totalling approximately 11.5 million tonnes of rock and clay was initiated in a valley on the true left side of the Mangapoike River. An 8 million tonne block of material slid northwards along a joint plane to block the Mangapoike River, which is tributary of the Wairoa River.

3. The event that triggered instability in the landslide is likely to have been a 4.3M earthquake centred about 17 km WSW of the site on 5 February 2018. The Waimaha rain gauge nearby in Gisborne District recorded 143 mm of rain in February, largely in the first half of the month (Figure 1). This rainfall will have lubricated the slip during its subsequent rapid failure.

Figure 1: Daily rain (mm) at Waimaha during February 2018

4. The rapid movement of the slip may have been recorded as a shallow 2.2M earthquake at an epicentre several kilometres away at 10:46 pm on 25 February 2018. The slip moved quickly enough to cause air blast and to overtop spurs as it moved. Part of the slip is in the Gisborne District and part is in the Wairoa District of Hawke’s Bay Region (Figure 2).

5. The slip dammed the Mangapoike River at Mangapoike. The river subsequently began to form a lake (Lake Mangapoike) behind the slip. Most of the lake is in the Gisborne District, but part is in the Wairoa District, Hawke’s Bay Region (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Landslide dam (slip) and lake behind the slip (Lake Mangapoike) on the boundary (pink) between Wairoa District (Hawke’s Bay Region) and Gisborne District

6. Access to the area is difficult, and visits to the lake by road from Hawke’s Bay must be made by a long detour through the Gisborne District.

7. The Gisborne District Council (GDC) has been leading the investigation into the landslide dammed lake by agreement with HBRC, by monitoring the lake’s growth and depth, and by monitoring the stability of the landslide material.

8. The risks associated with the landslide dam and the dammed lake are flooding of land upstream (mostly in the Gisborne District) and sediment and water discharge below the landslide dam (mostly in the Wairoa District).

The Response

9. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Wairoa District Council (WDC) and the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Group have collaborated with Gisborne District Council to undertake civil defence activities, including working with the farms upstream of the landslide dam as the lake grows in area, and notifying landowners downstream of the landslide dam about the incident and actions being taken.

10. In the weeks following initial formation of the lake, Gisborne District Council undertook various field visits, including oblique (Figure 3) and aerial photography and mapping of the slip and the lake (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 3: The Mangapoike slip looking north-west towards the Mangapoike River/landslide dam

Figure 4: Aerial photograph of the landslide dam on 22 March 2018

Figure 5: Potential pathways by which water may drain from Mangapoike Lake over (red) or through (blue) the landslide dam

11. Initial assessment undertaken by HBRC staff identified that the broad spread of the slip meant that it was relatively stable and unlikely to fail rapidly or catastrophically.

12. To understand the potential future risk to people and property from an overtopping dam, HBRC contracted Ian R Brown and Associates (IRBA), an engineering geology firm, to assess stability of the landslide dam.

13. IRBA visited the landslide dam and Lake Mangapoike on 21 and 22 March 2018. IRBA’s visit was managed by Gisborne District Council, but the contract work is funded by HBRC, reflecting the shared nature of the hazard.

14. At the same time IRBA visited the site, University of Auckland mapped the landslide and the lake. University of Auckland found that the landslide had a volume of about 2.4 million tonnes of material deposited to block the Mangapoike River, and a total of about 11.5 million tonnes of material had moved.

15. The volume of water impounded by the landslide dam was approximately 5 million m³ on 22 March 2018 (Figure 6), and that about 6.3 million m³ of water could be impounded before the dam overtopped (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Assumed bathymetry of landslide-dammed Lake Mangapoike

16. The water level in Lake Mangapoike was at 270 m on 22 March 2018. It was expected that water would overtop into the lower part of the landslide dam when the water level reaches 273.5 m, within a week (Figure 7). This subsequently occurred on 2 April 2018.

17. The assessment by IRBA concluded that the landslide dam has a broad base, which enhances the dam’s stability. However, IRBA noted that landslide dams generally are short lived because water overtops them and seeps through the dam core. There are exceptions to this, such as Waikaremoana and Tūtira.

18. IRBA suggested the chance of catastrophic failure of the landslide dam as no more than 10%. However, the landslide mass moved on a low angle frictionless surface that may allow further movement.

Figure 7: Relationship between water level and reservoir (lake) volume

19. IRBA made 5 recommendations, which were:

19.1. Link the upper ponding area (the main body of the lake in Figure 6) with the lower ponding area (the southern area of the lake in Figure 6, not yet full of water) with a constructed channel

19.2. Cut a spillway over the landslide dam and armour it to control incision

19.3. Investigate the dam toe for points where it discharges through the body of the dam, and monitor these

19.4. Investigate the landslide scarp for further cracks, and restrict access to the site

19.5. Inspect slopes around the lake for cracking induced by the rising water table, and any evacuate any affected occupied structures

20. Action 1 was completed on 29 March 2018 by GDC. Water started moving from the upper ponding area to the lower ponding area on 3 April 2018.

21. Action 2 was initiated by HBRC on 30 March 2018 by arranging to walk a digger to the slip location along the old Wairoa to Gisborne highway through Tukemohiki Station. On 4 April 2018 a site visit to see where the spillway could be dug was undertaken by GDC, WDC and the digger contractors. This visit identified that it would be more suitable to use explosives to construct the second spillway. This work was scheduled for 6 April 2018.

22. On 4 April 2018, approximately 10 days of inflowing water could be accommodated before Mangapoike Station infrastructure began to be affected. The water level had risen to 1.4 m below the bridge deck level on Mangapoike Station.

What Might Happen

23. The landslide dam may experience three possible future scenarios:

23.1. The landslide dam remains stable, and water exits from the dam by overtopping or through the dam core

23.2. The landslide dam is overtopped by the water behind the dam and fails slowly by incising a channel through the dam material

23.3. The landslide dam fails rapidly by mass movement induced by high water pressures in the dam core and by lubrication of the base of the dam

24. The least likely scenario is scenario 3 – sudden and rapid failure of the landslide dam. IRBA assess that this has a likelihood of less than 10%. However, this scenario has potentially the most severe consequences.

25. To understand what might happen if the water impounded in Lake Mangapoike was released suddenly in the most severe scenario (3), HBRC river engineers created a simple flood model for the catchment, and routed a dam-break event through the Mangapoike River and Wairoa River (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Key locations in the Mangapoike River dam break modelling analysis

26. This flood modelling used a discharge scenario from the dam of 10,000 m³/s. For comparison, a 2% (1:50 year) flood event in the Wairoa River is about 4,350 m³/s at the railway bridge. The discharge was modelled to occur very rapidly, as happens when a landslide dam fails. In this scenario, high levels of discharge begin 20 minutes after the event starts, and peak 30 minutes after the event starts.

27. In the modelled scenario, the pulse of water released from the dam would reach Tukemokihi (Figure 8) in about 15 minutes, and would probably cover the Te Puna bridge at that settlement. It is not known whether the houses and other buildings at Tukemokihi would be affected by a flood in this scenario. The Kotare Road bridge – a few kilometres further downstream – would probably also be covered by a flood of this magnitude.

28. As any flood wave travels down a river it is flattened out by interaction with the bed and banks. Since the rivers in this catchment are mostly well-incised into their floodplains, the modelled landslide dam failure would be contained within the banks of the Mangapoike and Wairoa rivers in almost all locations (Figure 9).

29. This means it is unlikely that sudden failure of the landslide dam will adversely affect settlements downstream. Nonetheless, large flows and sediment discharges still could occur, and river activities such as fishing and boating should be discouraged downstream of the landslide dam until the hazard has been assessed as very low.

Figure 9: Modelled landslide dam break in the Mangapoike River and Wairoa River in long section along the channel from the landslide dam (left) to the sea (right). The blue area at right shows the normal depth of Wairoa River flow. The blue area at Tukemokihi is the flood from the modelled dam break scenario shortly after it starts. The dashed red line shows the maximum height the flood would reach as it progressed down the channel. The upper solid black line is the height of the river banks along the channel.

Future Actions

30. Monitoring of water levels of Lake Mangapoike by Gisborne District Council will continue.

31. Any overtopping flows will be assessed to determine whether channel armouring will need to be installed, to prevent uncontrolled incision of the landslide dam.

32. Seepage from the toe of the dam will be monitored by aerial photography, and by site visits.

33. Meetings between Gisborne District Council, Wairoa District Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group will continue as required.

34. An update on the situation will be provided verbally to augment this paper during the meeting.

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 Environmental and Services Committee receives the “Mangapoike Landslide Update” staff report.

Authored by: Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Hawke's Bay Marine and Coastal Group Roadmap

Reason for Report

1. This report presents the Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group Research Roadmap (attached) for the Committee’s information.

Background

2. The Roadmap has been developed over the past 18 months by the Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group in conjunction with Ecoast Ltd., to highlight key future coastal and marine research themes.

3. The Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group (HBMAC) is chaired by HBRC staff and includes a range of our partners in the marine space.

4. HBMAC was formed by HBRC some 3 years ago in response to growing concerns about the state of the coastal environment and a lack of leadership among the diverse interests in this area.

5. The development of the Roadmap has been an extensive collaborative process. The document includes the aspirations, priorities and expectations of all the members of the group.

The Roadmap

6. The Roadmap includes three themes:

6.1. Terrestrial and Coastal Linkages

6.2. Ecosystems and Habitats

6.3. Fisheries. Mātauranga Māori

7. The principles of kaitiakitanga and the impacts of climate change are integral to the research themes. Under each of these themes sit a variety of research topics.

7.1. Terrestrial and coastal linkages:

7.1.1 Quantifying contaminant and sediment loads

7.1.2 Understanding contaminant and sediment fate and transport.

7.1.3 Supporting tangata whenua research across the coastal marine area.

7.2. Ecosystems and habitats:

7.2.1 Determine the location, extent and state of subtidal habitats and species

7.2.2 Monitor and research marine mammals and seabirds.

7.3. Fisheries:

7.3.1 Research fish species in Hawke’s Bay

7.3.2 Promote citizen participation in fisheries monitoring and research

7.3.3 Identify ways fisheries can be enriched through habitat enhancement, habitat creation or conservation-related methods

7.3.4 Use traditional knowledge and historical catch information to evaluate how sections of the fishery have changed

7.3.5 Research the effects of fishing in Hawke’s Bay.

8. The intention of the Roadmap is to guide future marine research in Hawke’s Bay region and ‘to ensure the restoration and ongoing health of the Hawke’s Bay marine environment including an abundant fishery for present and future generations’.

9. This Roadmap will be followed by an implementation plan that will focus on the specific requirements of meeting the objectives under each of the research themes.

10. There will be a launch function for the Roadmap in Napier on Friday, 8 June 2018.

Strategic Fit

11. This Roadmap is intended to guide Council’s and other partners’ research in the marine environment of Hawke’s Bay. In so doing, this research will assist Council with meeting its obligations under the RMA to ensure the sustainable management of the Hawke’s Bay coastal marine area.

12. The collaborative nature of this project meets the Council’s strategic vision of enhancing our environment together.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

13. This Roadmap should have positive impacts for Māori in that it acknowledges that the inclusion of Mātauranga Māori and the principles of kaitiakitanga is fundamental to achieving the desired outcomes of this document.

14. There are several tangata whenua representatives in the Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group, including representatives from Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Inc, Ngāti Kere, Ngāti Pāhuwera, Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea and Te Ohu Kaimoana.

15. The Roadmap is not a statutory document, but it considers multiple influences on Coastal Marine Area management.

Financial and Resource Implications

16. Council has increased the funding of its coastal and marine science considerably through the ‘Hotspot’ funding and through proposed increases within the Long Term Plan. This, coupled with the significant increase in funding proposed for land management related activities, will have a strong positive impact in this area.

17. It is our intention to work the other partners in this exercise to secure funding for the research outlined in the Roadmap. In particular, MPI is seen as a key funding agency.

Decision Making Process

18. 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 “Hawke's Bay Marine and Coastal Group Roadmap” staff report.

Authored by:

Oliver Wade

Scientist

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇨1

HB Marine and Coastal Roadmap

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 April 2018

Subject: Zero Carbon

Reason for Report

1. On 15 March 2018 the Minister for Climate Change called for registrations of interest to participate in the Government’s consultation on the Zero Carbon Bill. This paper discusses the Government’s timeline and alignment with Council’s own activities.

Executive Summary

2. The Zero Carbon Bill is touted as being the “cornerstone of New Zealand’s transition to a low emission climate resilient future that will help achieve NZ’s international commitments.” The consultation will also cover the role of the new independent Climate Change Commission. The Commission is intended to take a long-term non-partisan view, provide independent advice to the government of the day, and ensure New Zealand stays on track to meet its climate change goals.

3. According to the Climate Change Minster’s own media statement, formal consultation on this matter will be starting around the end of May through to July. MFE’s webpage foreshadows further information on the Bill’s proposals will be released at that time. Other than a few media releases from Ministers, there is nothing publicly released about the Bill’s proposals. The Government had previously signaled it will introduce a Bill in late 2018, which will be the more formal opportunity for HBRC to make submissions to the relevant Select Committee.

4. At the very least, our Council has made a commitment in our strategic plan and draft LTP to being a carbon neutral region by 2040. We will start this by making our Dalton St. offices a carbon neutral operation. This includes putting in place an electric vehicle first policy, promoting telework, reinvestigating solar heating and energy options, and seeking the procurement of carbon offset units. This paper outlines HBRC’s broader scope of activities for climate resilience.

Impacts of Climate Change

5. Climate Change is real and affects everything we do. Human caused greenhouse gas emissions have been adding additional pressures to natural processes and cycles worldwide. Hawke’s Bay faces a range of climate change challenges relevant to its Long-Term Plan time horizon, with actions needing to be completed, or initiated by 2028.

6. The primary sector stands to suffer greater exposure to drought risk, and whose wellbeing and livelihoods are threatened by a warmer, dryer, and stormier future climate. Due to dryer conditions and more extreme rainfall events, the region can also expect increased floods and sedimentation of rivers that places burden on our local infrastructure, freshwater health, and inshore fisheries. Coastal communities also stand to suffer from rising sea levels, storm surges and infrastructure limitations. The task is to reduce exposure to climate-related risk by bringing the region together under a common purpose: climate resilience.

7. HBRC aims to support and incentivise change, shape more climate resilient communities and reduce our collective risk in a region economically dependent on the alignment of good soil and good water supply. Council can also focus efforts on ensuring our communities are ready for what is to come and play a role in helping our region transition to a low-emissions economy.

8. HBRC climate change resilience activities fall into two broad categories:

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

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

9. From a climate change adaptation perspective, it is important to reduce exposure to climate-related risk for a) Council assets and services and b) the wider regional community. Risks can arise from a lack of preparation or ability to bounce back from an event or drought period.

10. Mitigation can be achieved through prudent investments and strategic planning. We can lead by example and support emissions reduction or offsetting activities.

11. Many actions to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change are complementary. Policy synergies and alignment can increase the effectiveness of both and promote additional benefits.

What HBRC Does

12. Current HBRC activities already help reduce the region’s carbon emissions and help our communities prepare for extreme events. These actions have not always been explicitly for “climate change” but they firmly fit into the category of climate change adaptation (coping with a changing climate) or climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions).

13. While some of these activities have occurred within the timeframe of the current long term plan, many have been ongoing as part of HBRC BAU activities for a number of years.

14. The Council’s 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.”

15. Most recently, HBRC commissioned an external expert to conduct an assessment of the council’s climate change contributions. These fell into the following categories:

15.1. Facilities Management

15.2. Air Quality

15.3. Transport

15.4. Sustainable Farming

15.5. Research, Monitoring & Planning Tools

15.6. Reforestation

15.7. Biodiversity & Biosecurity

15.8. Flood and Coastal Protection

15.9. Water Management.

Snapshot of HBRC’s current work to reduce emissions

Facilities Management

16. HBRC has worked hard to increase the efficiency of our building operations and encourage less emissions-intensive travel. We track energy use trends in our Dalton Street office location and use these to inform enable more efficiency energy management. We have also procured a number of lower emissions transport vehicles for our staff to use and have measured our operations CO2 footprint.

Transport

17. HBRC activities support the use of lower emissions and zero emissions transport options. HBRC is part of a collaborative project with other councils, the District Health Board and the Eastern Institute of Technology to promote the uptake of electric vehicles. We also partner with a car pooling website (The Smart Travel website) that matches people seeking car-pooling partners in the Hawke’s Bay region. In addition, we promote the Hawke’s Bay trail network which covers 200 km of off-road cycle and walking pathways.

Reforestation

18. HBRC has a long history of collaboration with our rural communities, central government, and research partners around the establishment of forests. Many of these forests are planted on highly eroding land, are made up of a variety of species, and have the ability to gain carbon credits.

Sustainable Farming

19. In partnership with farmers HBRC has been undertaking soil conservation pole planting in the latest phase of an on-going (inter-decadal) programme. This has involved planting an estimated 2.2 million poplar and willow poles to stabilize an estimated 45,000 ha of erodible land. HBRC has also funded riparian vegetation plantings totalling 175,000 plants over the last three years. These efforts have increased the flood and drought resilience of the land and in some cases have helped remove a significant amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

20. As a means of mitigating the adverse effects of soil erosion, HBRC has taken an active role in research initiatives targeting erosion control through commercial and non-commercial tree plantings within the region. For example, our partnership with the New Zealand Dryland Forests Initiative has established a trail of naturally ground durable eucalypt species that will provide timber revenue, carbon units, climate resilience, and erosion control. However, these have been at a minor scale due to limited resources and funding.

21. The Regional Council has a stated strategic goal within its newly adopted Strategic Plan that at least 50% of highly erodible land (modelled to be over 200,000 hectares) in the region will be treated with tree planting by 2030 and for all such land to be under tree cover by 2050. While ambitious, the Council considers this level of tree planting is necessary to achieve the water quality, climate resilience, and carbon neutrality objectives it has set for the region.

Summary

22. In our strategic plan, we state that “climate change impacts our region’s physical and biological resources, and is a key consideration in everything we do.” We want to evaluate what we do, what we want to do more of, what our best role is, and how to make this happen. This provides an opportunity to consider how other entities, such as central government, are supporting New Zealand to better adapt to climate change and transition the country to a low-emissions economy.

23. Making our region carbon neutral will take time and sustained effort. HBRC is committed to working with our communities to prioritise how we do this and guarantee the climate co-benefits of our efforts in land and water management. Innovative ideas to do this were supplied by an externally commissioned report done by Dr Sean Weaver in Nov. 2017.

24. HBRC is well placed to provide strong local leadership that can mobilise our communities and encourage the transition to low-emissions land uses, technologies, infrastructure, and activities. We want to make sure that we put our efforts where they can make the most difference and provide support for communities to be visionaries and pioneers.

25. We want to help increase awareness of the impacts of climate change as well as individuals impact on climate change. In doing this, we want to promote community ownership and agency and align with our communities’ existing values. As part of this, we will support collaborative dialogs about how our communities (urban, rural, and coastal) can adapt to climate change and make a difference to reducing NZ emissions.

Decision Making Process

26. 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 “Zero Carbon” staff report.

Authored by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.