Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee



Date:                 Wednesday 4 July 2018

Time:                9.00am


Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street





Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page


1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 11 April 2018

4.         Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings                   3

5.         Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda                                                              7

Decision Items

6.         Catchment Grants Policy                                                                                              9

7.         Management of Council River Berm Land                                                                  13

8.         Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document                                                                   35

Information or Performance Monitoring

9.         Tukituki Tranche 2 Groundwater                                                                                 49

10.       Tukituki Plan Implementation Update                                                                         51

11.       Management Options to Protect Whitebait Species                                                   57

12.       Future Farming Initiative                                                                                             63

13.       Biosecurity Operational Plans                                                                                     65

14.       1.00pm  Enviroschools Update                                                                                   67

15.       Pandora Pond Update                                                                                                 69

16.       July 2018 Hot Spot/Freshwater Improvement Projects Update                                 71

17.       July 2018 Operational Activities Update                                                                     81

18.       Discussion of Items Not on the Agenda                                                                      89




Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

SUBJECT: Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings


Reason for Report

1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require follow-ups. All items indicate who is responsible for each, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

2.      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.



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the report Follow-up Items from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings.


Authored by:

Annelie Roets

Governance Administration Assistant


Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation





Follow-ups for July 2018 E&S meeting




Follow-ups for July 2018 E&S meeting

Attachment 1



Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 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.


1.     That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 18:

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



Raised by











Leeanne Hooper


Liz Lambert




Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Catchment Grants Policy


Reason for Report

1.      To discuss with the Committee a draft policy and criteria for use to assess and approve financial assistance grant applications from landowners for Council’s erosion control projects.


2.      As at 2018, there is more than 252,000 hectares of Hawke’s Bay hill country at high risk of erosion.[1]  It is estimated that this land produces on average 3,272,686 tonnes of sediment into the region’s waterways every year.  In addition to the economic impacts of soil loss to the landholder, this high level of sedimentation impacts upon water quality within the region and the biodiversity (both aquatic and terrestrial) that depends upon it.

3.      To address this issue, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) has created the Hawkes Bay Afforestation Programme (HBAP) under the broader Kahutia programme, which seeks to help address three of the four focus areas of the HBRC Strategic Plan 2017-2021, being:

3.1.      water quality /safety and certainty of supply

3.2.      healthy and functioning biodiversity, and

3.3.      smart sustainable land use.

4.      Commercially driven tree planting will be the primary focus of the HBAP as this presents the most cost-effective means of stabilising large areas of erosion prone land.  Noting that not all land is suitable for commercially driven afforestation, the programme also allows for the provision of an Erosion Control Scheme.  

5.      The commercial component of this programme is to be developed separately to the Erosion Control Scheme (ECS) but they are complementary and mutually contribute towards the programme’s target outcomes. 

6.      This paper introduces and seeks approval for the internal policy for staff to administer the ECS grant fund of $30 Million over the life of the current LTP. 

7.      In developing this policy staff have been mindful that there is currently a high degree of inertia around our erosion control work.  While there has historically been activity across the region related to erosion control, it has not been at a sufficient scale or pace to address the regions erosion challenge.

8.      It is important therefore that this policy initially is agile and flexible to not only focus the spend on activities that will achieve erosion control outcomes but will also provide the right signals to landowners within the region to drive uptake and demand.

9.      For this reason the policy at this stage has been carefully crafted to allow for discretion at the Catchment Manager and Group Manager level to fund a wide set of potential projects that will contribute to Councils strategic objectives.

10.    Staff will continually monitor the activity and the outcomes and will be regularly reporting this back to Council.  Staff expect that this monitoring and review will allow for further refinement of the policy in time.  This will be particularly important as demand for the resources is approaching or exceeding supply.  Staff consider this is a desirable outcome as it will fuel further demand and competition so allowing further prioritisation and targeting.

11.    As demand approaches or exceeds the supply of resources staff will further prioritise projects for funding and will bring these refinements back for the policy to be formally updated by Council through the annual review process.

12.    Associated with the policy development staff are working on an engagement and communication strategy with assistance from a local company.  Targeted engagement will also assist with landowner understanding and acceptance so further driving demand and uptake.

13.    Local consultants Amanda Langley and Ben Anderson from ProjectHaus, have assisted in the development of this policy and will attend the meeting to present the policy.

Options Assessment

14.    As Council has committed to investing the funding into this work and a policy to guide staff decision making is required, staff do not consider Council has the option to not have a policy.

Strategic Fit

15.    As noted in section 3 on the paper this activity is consistent with Council’s Strategic Plan.

16.    The activity is additionally consistent with Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) outcome measures in Part 1- Introduction and activity measures in Part 4 – Groups of Activities.

17.    In particular, the most relevant outcomes measures are:

17.1.    By 2030, at least 50% of highly erodible land treated with soil conservation plantings

17.2.    By 2030, there will be 20% less contaminants from urban and rural environments into receiving waterbodies

17.3.    By 2050, all highly erodible land will be under tree cover

17.4.    By 2050, there will be 50% less contaminant from urban and rural environments into receiving waterbodies.

18.    The most relevant activity measures for the Catchment Management activity under the Integrated Catchment Management group of activities are:

18.1.    Additional area of highly erodible land planted in trees (ha). Target: 2000ha per annum

18.2.    Additional kilometres of riparian margin protected annually to reduce sediment, nutrient and/or bacterial contamination of water** (**includes streams, drains, wetlands, lakes, estuaries and the coast). Target: 100km per annum.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

19.    Staff do not consider this item impacts tangata whenua and the programme and associated expenditure have been already consulted on through the LTP process.

Financial and Resource Implications

20.    There are no new financial or resource implications beyond those agreed to by Council through its deliberations for the LTP.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

21.4.   The persons affected by this decision are the wider Hawke’s Bay community

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

21.6.    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.



1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Catchment Grants 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 Erosion Control Scheme Policy.



Authored and Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management





HB Afforestation Programme - Grant Scheme Policy Draft


Under Separate Cover



Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Management of Council River Berm Land


Reason for Report

1.      This item provides an update on progress with the Public Use of River Berm investigations and seeks agreement from the Environment and Services Committee to:

1.1.      Establish provision for a ranger position to patrol HBRC administered open spaces and river berms.

1.2.      Accept cattle grazing of river berms as a maintenance and management tool until such time that affordable alternatives have been tested and confirmed.


2.      In September 2017, the “Management of Public Use of River Berm” Environment and Services Committee agenda item provided a progress report on the investigation into Public Use of River Berms within the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme (Rivers), launched in December 2016. The investigation sought to understand and / or respond to the following pressures.

2.1.      Perceived declining regional community tolerance over some aspects of river berm management, such as berm grazing by stock.

2.2.      Increasing community level of service expectations as berm land has become both more accessible through higher public use such as cycle trails and more visible due to expressway developments.

2.3.      Pressures on Scheme land area to accommodate new activities and infrastructure such as horse trails, jet-ski ramps, carparks and sports grounds whilst not compromising flood protection services and the continued opportunity for existing public use and activity.

2.4.      Inappropriate public use and activity such as vandalism, rubbish dumping, hooning (anti-social behavior conducted in a vehicle), freedom camping and illegal activity.

2.5.      The need to consider the above in the context of multiple use opportunities such as flood control and drainage objectives, iwi aspirations, biodiversity, biosecurity and ecological enhancements.

2.6.      The need for a consistent and coordinated council approach to public use management within the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme. A similar approach is being applied to high use sections of the Upper Tukituki rivers where public use conflict is occurring, as we experience increased user demand.

3.      The investigation focused on the major rivers crossing the Heretaunga Plains (Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro and Lower Tukituki), and involved the Scheme owned or administered land and its assets extending from landward toe of stopbank to landward toe of stopbank.

4.      This work forms a sub-part of higher level works contributing toward the review of the levels of service provided by the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme (Rivers), currently being progressed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council staff.

5.      In December 2016 staff put forward the following program of work to complete the investigation.

5.1.      Complete an inventory of all current uses of river berm land including all recreational activities (both passive and active), grazing and other commercial activity (e.g. apiary, cropping and gravel extraction), and environmental areas.

5.1.1.      A full and detailed inventory of the project area is now complete.

5.2.      Investigate best practice options throughout NZ, and work with public and Māori partners to understand their respective aspirations for use and management of our rivers.

5.2.1.      The main investigation report and consultation document “Review of the Public Use of Rivers” draft documents are now complete.

5.3.      Prepare an options report for presentation to Council for consideration and wider public feedback as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

5.3.1.      Drafting of a concept development plan using a reach of the Ngaruroro River from Fernhill to Awatoto as a pilot study to undertake analysis on and trial potential solutions identified in the main investigation report “Review of Public Use of Rivers – Ngaruroro - Concept Development Plan” was not completed in time to be considered as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

5.3.2.      The first draft of the concept development plan is now complete and is intended for use as a consultation document to facilitate public feedback on river berm management.

Review of the Public Use of Rivers – Key Findings

6.      In seeking to understand and respond to the pressures outlined, the review:

6.1.      Provides a legislation and policy overview relevant to the public use of river berms that traverses relevant laws which might affect (or assist) the management of public use within the river corridors, and the existing regional and territorial policies that shape how public use of rivers is currently managed.

6.2.      Identifies and discusses existing problems.

6.3.      Discusses best practice approaches as adopted by national leaders in regional open space delivery.

6.4.      Defines key focus areas within which are grouped a range of issues to be addressed by council. The key focus areas are:

6.4.1.      Reduce or eliminate cattle from water bodies (including floodwater).

6.4.2.      Reduce undesirable behavior across the whole river corridor.

6.4.3.      Manage the adverse effects of recreational activities, particularly conflicts.

6.4.4.      Reflect and celebrate kaitiakitanga.

6.4.5.      Improve amenity and landscape values in key locations.

6.5.      Provides recommendations for implementing and acting on review findings.

7.      Through discussion and analysis of the key focus areas the review identifies 27 actions that when implemented will either collectively or on an action by action basis, and as funding allows, better manage the outlined pressures and provide positive and enhanced outcomes for users of river berm land as well as the regional community.

8.      Implementing all of the 27 actions listed in the “Review of the Public Use of Rivers”, in the short term, is not feasible from both a financial perspective and staff resourcing. Many of the solutions require further investigation in the form of business cases or field trials to develop a full understanding of the benefits they might provide, and/or their associated costs.

9.      Staff have therefore prioritized 9 of the 27 actions for either further investigation, or integration into existing systems and budgets, or to be incorporated into the development of specific areas within the river corridor project area, short term.

Options Assessment (prioritized action discussion)

10.    Eliminating cattle grazing of berms where appropriate and affordable.

10.1.    This action centers on using a trial area on the right bank of the Ngaruroro to better understand the risks and management of berm areas traditionally grazed via other maintenance regimes. Refer to action “Ngaruroro Concept Development Plan” (draft). The primary risks to be managed with a no grazing approach include:

10.1.1.   accelerated sedimentation of river berm and subsequent loss of conveyance (capacity of floodway)

10.1.2.   Increased fire risk over summer through large areas of rank grass cover

10.1.3.   Increased costs to maintain the un-grazed river berm, plant pest control and / or mowing for example.

11.    Enhanced cattle management:

11.1.    This action looks at improving existing cattle grazing systems and practices on the river berms such as:

11.1.1.   More frequent monitoring of grazing on river berm land

11.1.2.   Requiring grazing lease holders to react more quickly to instances where cattle breach fences and enter waterways

11.1.3.   Ensure that quality fencing is in-place and well maintained

11.1.4.   More detailed planning of where grazing is appropriate on the river berms (see “Ngaruroro Concept Development Plan”).

12.    Investigate cut and carry crops as an alternative to cattle grazing:

12.1.    An approximate 20 hectare trial area has been established on the Ngaruroro right bank off Ormond Rd for meadow hay. Primary objective is to have the grass sward cut, baled and removed at no cost. Trial commences November 2018. Staff are also investigating Lucerne as a potential crop for appropriate river berm areas.

13.    Reduce vehicle-accessible areas:

13.1.    The review identifies that most inappropriate behavior issues on the river berms occur in areas where people are able to get vehicles to, including (in places) the river channel or areas beyond normally closed gates. Staff have restricted vehicle access at traditional Ngaruroro river accesses:

13.1.1.   Carrick Road

13.1.2.   Ormond Road

13.1.3.   Farndon Road (Chesterhope)

14.    Replace locks to public access areas:

14.1.    The review identified that the council lock and key system that controls vehicle access to gated council land is compromised and aging. The review recommended investigating new systems and technologies for more efficient and effective management of council security gates.

15.    Introduce CCTV:

15.1.    Staff are trialing a solar powered surveillance camera that transmits live footage to staff iphones 24 hours a day.

16.    Undertake Signage Review:

16.1.    The review identified a wide variety of signage across the project area and noted:

16.1.1.   Many are in varying degrees of repair

16.1.2.   Many are in old Regional Council branding (‘warning’ signs often have no branding at all)

16.1.3.   There are a number of third-party signs, some of which no longer relate to activities undertaken in certain areas.

16.2.    Replacing all signs across the river corridors in a single project is not appropriate or affordable at this point. Further consideration is required to understand and identify which signs still perform well, signs that need maintenance, signs that need replacement or removal. This information will then inform long term signage strategy that sets out how signs across the river corridor network should look, where they should be placed, and what long term budgets are required for replacement and maintenance.

17.    Introduce patrol staff:

17.1.    Feedback from other Councils (Auckland, Wellington and Canterbury), strongly supports the introduction of patrol staff (park rangers), as a mechanism to reduce undesirable behaviour. Local experience reinforces this where security firms have been engaged to patrol pathways to manage a particular problem and areas of Waitangi Regional Park in late 2016.

17.2.    Patrol staff would support and increase effectiveness of many of the prioritized actions listed above through:

17.2.1.   Reducing the frequency of rubbish dumping and vandalism to council assets through direct intervention

17.2.2.   Educating the public about Council values and policies

17.2.3.   Increasing the visibility of Council and providing a point of contact

17.2.4.   Enforcement

17.2.5.   Monitoring and reporting maintenance issues and berm grazing, ensuring rapid response times

17.2.6.   Facilitating volunteer programmes and supervising PD groups

17.2.7.   Reinforce the status of river corridors as important recreational areas and assist with conflict management

17.2.8.   Facilitate and support emergency responses to natural disasters

17.2.9.   Facilitate and manage fire risks within the river corridors.

17.3.    Patrol staff introduction is identified as the priority action to reduce undesirable and inappropriate behavior. Council staff recommend this occurring prior to implementing actions such as padlock or signage replacement.

17.4.    Cost for engaging permanent patrol staff is calculated at $120k per annum per FTE including vehicle. One patrol staff is recommended initially.

Ngaruroro Concept Development Plan - pilot study area

18.    Due to recent pressures resulting from undesirable public activity along with the relinquishment of a grazing lease, an area of the Ngaruroro River was identified for the development of a Concept Development Plan. This plan begins to consider how some of the solutions outlined in this report, particularly those that relate to maintaining river berm through strategies other than grazing, can be delivered along with indicative costs. Of primary consideration is scheme and ratepayer affordability balanced with long term strategic direction and maintenance of flood control and drainage values.

19.    A draft concept development plan has been completed for the reach of the Ngaruroro, left and right banks, from Fernhill downstream to Awatoto. Main features of the plan include identifying and planning areas of berm land for:

19.1.    Grazing and non-grazing

19.2.    Cropping trials

19.3.    Mowing and no-mow areas to test a “do nothing approach”

19.4.    Restricting vehicle access at traditional public vehicle river access points

19.5.    Development of primary arrival areas (main carparks)

19.6.    Improving amenity and landscape vistas of areas adjacent and visible to state highway and main thoroughfare bridges

19.7.    Zoning and appropriately locating high impact user groups such as dirt bikes and 4WD

19.8.    Riparian and ecological enhancement  (wetland creation for example)

19.9.    Expansion of Pakowhai Regional Park.

20.    Rough order cost estimation suggests plan implementation would cost $2M with a ballpark initial annual maintenance cost of $500k (note this figure is based on the entire plan being implemented in one year and would reduce significantly in the 2nd year). Maintenance cost to specifically manage un-grazed areas of river berm within the project area is estimated at $100k per annum (estimate based on mowing 215ha two times per year). Strategies such as cropping and appropriate grazing regimes have the potential to significantly reduce this cost.

21.    Staff are not recommending implementing the Concept Development Plan presently, but to use it over the next 12 months as an iterative planning tool to continue to test public use strategies and alternative berm management approaches such as cropping trials.

22.    Further information and knowledge is sought prior to staff engaging in formal community consultation on the Ngaruroro Concept Development Plan.

Waipukurau Tukituki River Berm Concept Development Plan

23.    In response to public use issues, largely arising from the success of the Rotary Pathways Cycle Trail in CHB, HBRC via consultants have been working with key interest groups to draft a concept development plan for the Tukituki River berms near Waipukurau. It is intended that this document will guide public use and subsequent development of this river berm.

24.    It is noted that trail bike riders and 4WD users will be displaced and confined to one quarter of the available area. Efforts have been made to contact and consult with trail bike and 4WD enthusiasts in the project area, however due to the sporadic and uncoordinated nature of the trail bike and 4WD users this has proved difficult.

25.    The draft plan is nearing completion and staff are continuing to work with the CHB Rotary Pathways Trust and Bridle Trail users.

Strategic Fit

26.    The Public Use of River Berm investigation and recommendations link to the following strategic drivers and focus areas identified in HBRC’s Strategic Plan 2017 - 2021:

26.1.    Community values and expectations

26.2.    Past, present and future resource use

26.3.    Socio-economic development

26.4.    Water quality, safety and certainty

26.5.    Smart, sustainable land use

26.6.    Sustainable services and infrastructure

26.7.    Healthy and functioning biodiversity

Financial and Resource Implications

27.    No budget provision exists for a patrol staff FTE. Provision of 120k per annum will need to be progressed and established through the 2019/2020 Annual Plan and/or 2021 – 2031 Long Term Planning process.

Decision Making Process

28.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

28.4.    The persons affected by this decision are users of the Regional Parks.

28.5.    Options were considered during the development of Individual Park Plans.

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

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



1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Management of Council River Berm Land” 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 have an interest in the decision.

2.2.      Commits to establishing provision in the next available Annual Planning and / or Long Term Planning round to fund a permanent ranger staff position to patrol HBRC open space areas and pathways.

2.3.      Agrees that cattle grazing of river berm continues as the primary berm maintenance tool to manage vegetation growth until such time as affordable and viable alternatives are confirmed, and on proviso that on areas of berm land maintained via grazing every precaution is taken to prevent cattle entering waterways.

2.4.      Endorses developing the Ngaruroro Concept Development plan and pilot study area to identify, test and confirm affordable alternative berm maintenance technologies.



Authored by:                                                       Approved by:

Steve Cave

Team Leader Open Spaces

Gary Clode

Acting Group Manager




Review of the Public use of Rivers


Under Separate Cover


Ngaruroro - Concept Development Plan




Ngaruroro - Concept Development Plan

Attachment 2


Ngaruroro - Concept Development Plan

Attachment 2


Ngaruroro - Concept Development Plan

Attachment 2



Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document


Reason for Report

1.      The purpose of this report is firstly to outline the key features covered in the Consultation Document, secondly to remind committee members about the wide range of operational initiatives that the Regional Council is already doing with a changing climate in mind; and thirdly make some suggestions for the points that the Council could make in feedback on the Government’s Consultation Document.

Summary of the Zero Carbon Bill Proposals

2.      On June 7th, the Government released a consultation document on proposals and options for what could be incorporated into a ‘Zero Carbon Bill’ which was part of the Labour-led Government’s post-election pledges and priorities.  The deadline for public comments on the Consultation Document is 5:00pm 19 July 2018.

3.      The Consultation Document can be viewed online at:

4.      The 61-page consultation document contains three parts:

4.1.      Introduction - outlines what climate change is, the impact it is having and our local and global context.

4.2.      Proposals for the Zero Carbon Bill - sets out the proposals for the Bill, including the targets and the stepping stones to meet them, the Climate Change Commission and how we can plan to adapt.

4.3.      What happens next? - contains information about the Ministry’s planned consultation events, meetings and hui, and details the process for developing, finalising and implementing the Zero Carbon Bill.  It is intended that the Zero Carbon Bill will be introduced into Parliament later this year, with a view to passing the Zero Carbon Act by mid-2019.

The Target

5.      Three options are offered in the Consultation Document. All to be achieved by 2050 and all based on a ‘net zero’ future (i.e. allowing forestry sequestration to offset emissions to reach zero). They are, in order of ascending ambition:

5.1.      net zero carbon dioxide

5.2.      net zero long-lived gases (CO2 and nitrous oxide) and stabilised short-lived gases (methane), often called the ‘Two Baskets’ approach, or

5.3.      net zero emissions.

6.      The Government is also seeking comment on the process used to set the target. The options are:

6.1.      setting the target in the legislation at the outset, or

6.2.      setting a goal of net zero emissions by 2050 and await advice from the Climate Change Commission on the specific target for the government to set later.

7.      The Consultation Document poses several other questions about how NZ should meet its targets, including:

7.1.      whether New Zealand should meet its targets through net domestic emissions reductions, or whether emitters should also be able to buy international carbon units from overseas jurisdictions with strong environmental safeguards, and

7.2.      whether the Zero Carbon Act should allow the target to be revised if circumstances change.

Emissions Budgets

8.      These are the stepping stones to achievement of the target, and set the quantity of emissions allowed within a specific timeframe. Design choices include the length of each budget, how far ahead they should be set and whether they should be able to be revised.

9.      The Government’s preferred approach is that three budgets of five years each (i.e. covering the next 15 years) would be in place at any given time.  The Consultation Document asks for feedback on how much flexibility there should be for a Government to alter the third emissions budget in the sequence.

10.    The Government would also like flexibility to allow banking or borrowing from one emissions budget to the next, once a specified threshold has been met.

Climate Change Commission

11.    As indicated, the Government intends to establish an independent Climate Change Commission.  This Commission is proposed to have an advisory and monitoring role under the Bill (broadly aligning with the UK position). The Government has stopped short of endorsing formal decision-making powers for the Commission, although specific accountability mechanisms are envisaged.

12.    Under the Government’s proposal, the Climate Change Commission would:

12.1.    advise on the level and composition of emissions budgets, and monitor progress towards achieving those budgets

12.2.    provide independent expert advice on areas of the economy to focus on in achieving emissions budgets

12.3.    provide advice on the appropriate 2050 target level, and periodically monitor this

12.4.    monitor progress towards addressing risks from climate change, and

12.5.    advise on the extent to which international emissions reductions should be used towards New Zealand’s targets.

13.    To ensure accountability, and to strengthen the impact of the Commission’s advice and recommendations, the Government would have the following obligations:

13.1.    issuing a public report responding to any advice from the Commission, and explaining any departure from such advice, and

13.2.    providing a public response to any monitoring reports released by the Commission, within a defined timeframe.

14.    The Government is also seeking feedback on the Climate Change Commission’s potential role in the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme. The Government has not yet endorsed a position.


15.    The Zero Carbon Bill will also include provisions for adaptation to climate change impacts that can no longer be avoided. Proposed measures include:

15.1.    undertaking a national climate change risk assessment

15.2.    preparing a national adaptation plan

15.3.    regular review of progress towards implementing the national adaptation plan, and

15.4.    an adaptation reporting power.

Process for preparing HBRC’s submission on the Consultation Document

16.    The submission deadline is 5:00pm 19 July 2018.  Any person may provide feedback on the Consultation Document.  There is no ordinary Council meeting scheduled between the Environment & Services Committee meeting and the submission deadline.

17.    Staff are liaising with sector representative organisations (for example, LGNZ, SOLGM and senior staff within other regional councils and unitary authorities) in the drafting of local government sector feedback on the Consultation Document.  Recent examples of coordinated sector positioning on the issue of climate change include the ‘Local Government Position Statement on Climate Change,’ LGNZ’s submission in early June on the Productivity Commission’s draft report on transitioning to a low-emissions economy.  LGNZ has also published ‘Climate change project on a page’ – within which four points are laid out about what local government will do as its bit for climate change and what local government needs from central government (attached).

18.    Staff recommend that the Council provides its own feedback on the Consultation Document.  That submission ought to support a sector (regional local government) submission, and also feature a distinct Hawke's Bay ‘flavour’ in feedback on the Government’s proposals.

19.    In the following section, some preliminary ideas from staff are outlined for a possible HBRC submission.  The matters listed are not necessarily comprehensive nor absolute.

20.    Given there is no council or committee meeting scheduled between now and the 19 July deadline, staff recommend a process whereby staff liaise with a small number (say 2 or 3) councillors to further develop a draft submission on the Consultation Document and have the HBRC Chairman approve the submission to be lodged on Council’s behalf.  If time permits, an early draft submission could be circulated to all councillors for feedback and channelled through the small group for review prior to lodgement.

21.    In any event, comments and feedback from all committee members is invited at the meeting on the preliminary assessment and suggestions below about what ought to be the focus of HBRC’s feedback on the Government’s Consultation Document.

22.    It should also be noted that the process for establishing legislation (from a Bill to an Act of Parliament) will also present an opportunity for public submissions to a Select Committee in due course.

What might the Government’s proposals mean for HBRC’s roles, responsibilities and operations?

23.    The discussion document proposes ways of adapting to the impacts of climate change.  Together, the Government has proposed these to increase certainty by providing a long term and stable policy environment, a clear emissions target and a pathway to get there.  That includes:

23.1.    improving co-ordination between agencies, legislation and regulatory regimes;

23.2.    improving and sharing information on the impacts of climate change, for example, on our health, pest plants and animals, biodiversity and culture over time;

23.3.    providing tools for decision-makers to consider the risks to the whole of society and the economy.

24.    All of this sounds really positive and sensible.

25.    Last year, the Council received a report from eKOS[2]. That report outlines a wide range of Council’s current and planned activities that relate to climate change.  The eKOS report traversed HBRC’s facilities management, air quality, land transport planning and operations, sustainable farming, research and monitoring tools, reforestation, biodiversity and biosecurity, water management and natural hazard planning and mitigations. Consequently, the Zero Carbon legislation will have implications for a variety of the Council’s roles, responsibilities and operational activities.

26.    Clearly, adaptation to climate change is already a key part of HBRC’s business and will continue to be that way.  Nonetheless, many of the Government’s proposals in the Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document are not expected to be implemented by local councils – certainly not by councils alone.

27.    The Government’s three options for targets each present their own implications for Hawke's Bay and Hawke's Bay Regional Council.  Achieving the most ambitious target will involve unprecedented changes to primary production systems in Hawke's Bay.

28.    Some preliminary ideas for possible content of HBRC’s submission on the Consultation Document include:

28.1.    Support proposals that would introduce clear coherent and coordinated national policy on climate change adaptation and mitigation.

28.2.    Support for the proposals not devolving actions to local government to be individually and collectively responsible for achieving the national target.

28.3.    Support for establishing a Climate Change Commission.  At least initially without any regulatory powers.

28.4.    Support proposal for setting a goal of net zero emissions by 2050 and await advice from the Climate Change Commission on the specific target for the government to set later (as opposed to setting the target in legislation now).

28.5.    Foreshadow that HBRC is keen to “do its bit” to contribute to aspirational, yet realistic emissions reductions.  This should note that the 2018-28 Long-Term Plan framework has a primary focus on HBRC’s own assets, services and operations, with a secondary focus on the wider Hawke’s Bay community.

28.6     The aim is to show leadership in climate change innovation at the local government level. This focuses on a drive towards a low carbon, prosperous regional economy that is also agile and adaptive to a changing climate.

28.7     Agrees that agriculture must ultimately be incorporated into the ETS.  However it is critical that the impacts of such a change on rural communities, which will be significant, are carefully analysed and managed.

28.8     Agrees that a transition to a low-emissions economy and achieving the national target must be a priority area of focus for innovation, research and development in NZ.

28.9     The Consultation Document specifically poses sixteen questions for semi-structured public feedback on the proposals (attached).  If Council can form an agreed view on some or all of those sixteen questions, then the agreed positions should also form part of HBRC’s feedback.

Decision Making Process

29.    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:

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

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

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

29.4.   The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s response and resilience to climate change.  Any person may make submissions on the Government’s Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document.  The feedback is not limited to only councils.

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

29.6.    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.  Any person may choose to make their own submission on the Consultation Document.



1.     That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document” staff report.

2.     The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council

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

2.2     Agrees to submit feedback on the Government’s proposals set out in the Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document, and that due to submission deadlines, accepts the following nominated members liaising with senior staff in the further drafting and finalising of a submission to be signed by the Chairman on Council’s behalf.

2.2.1     ___________________________

2.2.2     ___________________________

2.2.3     ___________________________.



Authored by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy


Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning





LGNZ Climate Change Project




MFE Submission Form Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document




LGNZ Climate Change Project

Attachment 1


MFE Submission Form Zero Carbon Bill Consultation Document

Attachment 2




Environment and Services Committee  

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Tukituki Tranche 2 Groundwater        


Reason for Report

1.      The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the status of the applications for the take of groundwater, known as Tranche 2, from the Tukituki catchment.


2.      The following provides a background to the Tranche 2 allocation:

2.1.      The Tranche 2 groundwater allocation sits within Plan Change 6 (the Tukituki catchment).

2.2.      It was developed solely by the Board of Inquiry during its deliberations on Plan Change 6 and the RWSS consents and provided for an additional 15 million cubic meters of water to be taken from the Ruataniwha Basin.

2.3.      The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) submitted to the Board that there are significant uncertainties around this allocation and that the science suggested the Tranche 2 allocation was unsustainable. This was not accepted by the Board of Inquiry

2.4.      Consequently Policy TT8 in Plan Change 6 enables additional groundwater to be abstracted as a discretionary activity provided that augmentation to river flow occurs so as to maintain minimum flows, proportionate to the scale of effect of the Tranche 2 take.

2.5.      HBRC, via HBRIC, was intending to apply for most of the Tranche 2 water and mix it in with RWSS water to manage the resource sustainably (use stored water offset effects) but these consent applications were relinquished with RWSS not proceeding.

2.6.      HBRC staff consider that Tranche 2 water should be revisited in a Plan Change to the RRMP and it is on the list of matters to be addressed, but the Regional Planning Committee has higher plan change priorities at present.

Current status of activity

3.      The current state of play with regard to the Tranche 2 allocation is as follows:

3.1.      Eight groups have applied for a combined total of 17.1M m3/p.a, of which 11.9M m3/p.a is irrigation water and 5.3M m3/p.a is “augmentation water”.

3.2.      All consent applications under the Tranche 2 need to demonstrate that any effects on the surface and groundwater resources are acceptable.

3.3.      As outlined in 2.3 above HBRC’s science suggests that the allocation is not sustainable. Therefore the applications have been placed “on hold” until further information is provided by the consent applicants.

3.4.      Aqualinc have been engaged by the resource consent applicants to undertake numerical modelling to quantify the stream depletion effects and subsequent need for augmentation as a result of the proposed Tranche 2 groundwater takes. 

3.5.      Aqualinc’s Ruataniwha Basin numerical model will be used to quantify the approximate stream depletion effects of the proposed takes and the subsequent surface water augmentation requirements.  The proposed modelling work will provide an indicative magnitude, location and timing of the stream depletion effect of the proposed groundwater takes.

3.6.      The concept of augmentation is based on using groundwater stored in the aquifer system to mitigate effects on surface water from pumping groundwater during drier periods.  Augmentation will also result in additional stream depletion effects, but this may be delayed and spread over space and time through the storage response of the aquifer system. The model results can be used to consider changes in river flows and groundwater levels. 

3.7.      The model results can be compared to the baseline scenario (status quo, without the proposed takes) to ascertain the change in flows at key flow measuring sites, such as Tukituki at Tapairu Road, Waipawa River at SH2, Mangaonuku Stream and Tukipo River sites.

The future

4.      The Aqualinc investigations are expected to be concluded within the next 2-3 months. HBRC will then have a better understanding of the effects of the takes and will then proceed through the consenting process, including a decision on public notification of the consents. 

5.      Through the Long-Term Plan HBRC has included resourcing for subsurface electro-magnetic mapping of the Ruataniwha Basin and associated groundwater modelling in the years 2 and 3. This will dramatically increase HBRC’s understanding of the resource and the effect of users on it to inform future planning and consent allocation.

6.      HBRC has the option of a wider review of Plan Change 6 and considering amendments to the Tranche 2 groundwater provisions at that time although, as stated previously, this is not a priority for the Regional Planning Committee at this time.

Decision Making Process

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



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Tukituki Tranche 2 Groundwater” staff report.



Authored by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation


Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management




There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee  

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Tukituki Plan Implementation Update        


Reason for Report

1.      Tukituki River Catchment Plan Change 6 (Plan Change 6) is a catchment-specific change to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan that manages water quality and quantity issues within the area.

2.      Two major regulatory deadlines under Plan Change 6 have recently passed. Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs) were required to be completed for farming operations above 10ha and for some between 4ha-10ha by 31 May. In addition, new minimum flow requirements took effect on 1 July and have an impact on consent holders for surface water takes.

3.      This report provides a summary of work done to date, levels of compliance with the first regulatory deadline, and next steps for HBRC. It is broken into three sections with an Introduction at the start:

3.1.      Part 1: Farm Environmental Management Plans

3.2.      Part 2: Minimum Flow requirements

3.3.      Part 3: Continuing Implementation past 31 May


4.      Plan Change 6 is the first plan change to be implemented in the Hawke’s Bay Region that gives effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.  The farmers in the Tukituki Catchment are thus the first in the region required to collectively improve their management activities. Water quality improvements are expected from changes in management and operational activities outlined in FEMPs. Some of these changes are required in order for landowners to remain compliant with their new regulatory context.

5.      To date, HBRC has done significant work to promote the development of quality FEMPs by the regulatory deadline. As of 25 June 2018, 550 Farm Plans have been completed and 170 low intensity forms have been completed. There are still 269 in-progress.

6.      For those landowners who did not notify HBRC of their FEMP progress, letters were sent asking for an update. If landowners did not provide initial response by 29 June 2018, enforcement action may be taken against them. These properties are now required to apply for resource consent that includes a complete FEMP.

7.      Landowners must now implement the actions described in their FEMP. The next regulatory deadline is in May 2020 when landowners are required to exclude stock (except sheep and goats) from waterways and to ensure their Nitrogen Leaching rates sit within their consentable nitrogen allocation. All FEMPs must also be updated in May 2021, if not before.

8.      In addition to the 31 May deadline, new minimum flow standards for the catchment came into effect 1 July. These new limits place significant pressure on existing consented water takes.

9.      Within HBRC, responsibility for implementing the rest of Plan Change 6 will largely shift to the consents and compliance teams. Management of implementation across council will be provided by a new role: Principal Advisor- Policy Implementation. This role will help integrate council functions to ensure effective and efficient implementation of regulatory obligations, including Plan Change 6. In addition, efforts to ensure the quality of FEMPs moving forward will be taken on by the new Farm Environmental Management Plan Project Manager.

PART 1:  Farm Environmental Management Plans

10.    A Farm Environmental Management Plan (Farm Plan) is a written description of the environmental risks for a given farming enterprise and what management activities are in place (or will take place) to manage these. There are specific elements which must be included and these are outlined in Schedule XXII of Plan Change 6.

11.    Every farming operation in the Tukituki Catchment over 4ha in size has obligations under Plan Change 6.  Those over 10ha in size are required to complete a FEMP. Some who are between 4-10ha need to complete a FEMP depending on their operational activities.  If a FEMP is not required, we have asked that they complete a Low-intensity form online.

12.    HBRC has estimated a total of ~1,200 properties in the catchment that are likely to require a FEMP.  About a third of these are 40ha and below.

12.1.       Completed FEMP and low intensity forms (as of 31 May) by property or farm enterprise size.

13.    HBRC has been working since Plan Change 6 became operative in October 2015 to promote the development of quality FEMPs by 31 May deadline.

13.1        FEMPs completed and in-progress since January 2016

14.    The implementation of FEMPs has been a HBRC wide activity. Staff from across the organisation created a Tukituki Implementation team that discussed options for implementation.  Land Management staff were key members of this team and progressed the work while others were unable to commit due to other priorities.  Work fell into a number of broad categories including incentives for early uptake and action in priority catchments, capacity building and quality control, Industry and stakeholder support, awareness raising, and facilitation of implementation

15.    Incentives for the early update of FEMPs in priority sub-catchments:

15.1        The Papanui, Porangahau Stream, Maharakeke, Tukipo, Kahahakuri, Hawea, Makara and Mangamahaki have high levels of in stream dissolved phosphorus. Land Management Staff have focussed their attention on the contact and incentivisation of landholders with larger properties in these areas. Incentives used covered up to $1000 of an FEMP’s cost before 1 July 2017.  This resulted in greater uptake of FEMPs in these priority areas ahead of 31 May.  It also resulted in spikes of FEMPs being reported to HBRC at the end of financial years.

15.2        Map HBRC notified FEMPs completed and in-progress.  This map does not reflect more recent information of in-progress FEMPs made available to Council.

15.3        The Tukituki Implementation team created the Approved FEMP Provider scheme starting in early 2016 that improved the capability of rural professionals to complete FEMPs compliant with Plan Change 6 requirements.  This meant that HBRC had to set up an industry to produce and market a product that few farmers wanted and wasn’t legally required to have for another two years.  To date, a total of 22 rural professionals are now approved by HBRC to complete FEMPs.  Most landowners have used these providers to complete their FEMPs but do have the option to complete a FEMP on their own or with a non-approved provider.

16.       Industry and stakeholder support:

16.1     The team also worked with our region’s industry bodies to get their clients Farm Plans done early and to come up with lower cost options for farmers who wanted to do it themselves.  This resulted in a total of 20 workshops for beef and sheep operators, 1 for wine growers, 1 for foresters, and 1 for cropping farmers.  These workshops helped provide farm plans for 334 properties.

16.2     For those in the catchment who didn’t have an industry representative body (like lifestyle block owners), the team created a series of information sessions and FEMP workshops.  This resulted in a total of 31 FEMPs completed or in progress and 155 low intensity forms completed.  This is a 4 fold increase in farm plans and low intensity forms for properties between 4-40ha since 1 Jan 2018

17.       Awareness raising:

17.1     HBRC ran a communications campaign starting in 2014 shifting messaging over time from awareness building to compliance requirements.  Messaging changed from ‘Building Awareness’ in 2014, to ‘Encourage Action’ 2016-2017, ‘Act Today’ in 2018, to ‘Please Explain’ in June 2018.

17.2     Outputs included billboards along major roads in CHB, farmer meetings, radio interviews completed on the local station, field days, factsheets, and advertisements/articles in the local paper and HB Today.  See Appendix 1 for a series of visuals documenting some of these communications.

18.       Facilitation of Plan Change 6 implementation:

18.1     Implementing Plan Change 6 within and outside HBRC required a significant team effort.  A working group made of staff from across HBRC supported the interpretation of Plan Change 6 and Land Management (LM) staff provided this as guidance to the Approved FEMP Providers.  The team has documented many of the pathways taken and sought other HBRC staff or Executive leadership guidance along the way.

18.2     Tukituki Implementation has at times been challenging for staff.  Initially, work on implementation occurred on top of existing work programs and demands.  Once Tukituki Implementation dedicated staff were employed within the Land Management team, momentum significantly increased.

19     For those in our rural community, the farm plan represents the written beginning of a much longer journey.  Even just getting to writing down a farm plan requires a farmer to acknowledge they have an impact on water quality, plan how they will reduce this impact, write this down for posterity’s sake, and pay anywhere from $750 to $15,000 for it all.

20     On the whole, we hoped the LM team could maintain their positive relationships within CHB while farmers completed their FEMPs.  In practice, it has been a surprising mix of responses to this new regulatory requirement.  Some of the feedback we have received has been positive.  Going through the exercise requires farmers to look at their land in a different way, and some were encouraged to take a fresh look at their whole farming system.

21     The FEMP has become a platform for farmers to work from.  A number of farmers have actually thanked members of the LM team for supporting them through this process and for changing the way they think about things.

Part 2:  Minimum Flow Requirements

22.       Plan Change 6’s policies also set minimum flow regime and allocation limits.  Under the policy, minimum flows increase while groundwater and surface water allocation limits are set based on the existing volume of consented allocation.  These new limits came into effect on 1 July 2018 and have already been incorporated as conditions of relevant water permits in the catchment.

23.       These new limits place significant pressure on existing consented water takes for those within the catchment.  Following a deputation from members of the CHB community, including CHBDC Mayor Alex Walker, the Regional Planning Committee received advice on 1 November 2017, and 7 February 2018 on these matters and options for how impacts of the new limits might be alleviated in the short term.  The Committee failed to reach agreement on its preferred option.   Consequently, there is no work underway or staff resourced to prepare a plan change to amend any of the minimum flow limits or anything else currently in the RRMP as a result of Plan Change 6 becoming operative.

24.       The Chief Executive has previously approved for funding assistance to the Central Hawke’s Bay Surface Water Group for research by that Group on water security options.  This research will look to provide solutions on minimum flow management on a collective basis of some form.

Part 3:  Implementation Past 31 May

25.       HBRC is now shifting from ‘here to help’ to ‘here to check.’  Technically, anyone who doesn’t have an FEMP by 31 May can be required to apply for resource consent.  We gave a small grace period until 29 June for landowners to let us know where things are at.  If we have not receive a satisfactory response by that time, our compliance team will follow up.

26.    In addition, there are a number of remaining obligations for HBRC to fulfil.  An example of this is the Procedural Guidelines covering how an adaptive management process will be used for properties whose Nitrogen leaching exceeds their nitrogen allocation (among other things).  The PLAN CHANGE 6 imposed deadlines for these obligations have past and most projects are partially underway.

27.    New staff included in the recently agreed LTP proposals will take this work forward.  The FEMP Project coordinator and Principal Advisor Policy Implementation will focus on the quality of FEMPs and ensure that Plan Change 6 implementation continues. 

28.    The next regulatory deadline is in in May 2020 when farmers need to meet N limits and exclude stock from accessing waterways.  Southern Hawke’s Bay Catchment advisors will work closely with these two new roles to ensure that farmers are prepared for their required next steps. 

29.    What we do in the Tukituki sets a precedence for other catchment areas, including TANK.  Lessons learned from this process are being documented and shared across HBRC as well as with other regional councils.

30.    Farmers in other parts of our region are also looking to see how we respond.

Decision making

31.    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.



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Tukituki Plan Implementation Update” staff report.



Authored by:

Madeline Hall

Senior Land Management Advisor


Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management



There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee  

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Management Options to Protect Whitebait Species        


Reason for Report

1.      To briefly review whitebait related work that council has been doing.

2.      To specify a short list of works that will be undertaken within Business As Usual work programmes to create immediate benefit to whitebait and other native fish species.

3.      To outline different options to map critical habitats and monitor improvements in whitebait populations.


4.      Councillor Beaven, who started whitebaiting on the Tukituki with his father 50 years ago, relayed concerns about the extremely poor whitebait catch last season.

5.      This has highlighted overall concerns about habitat quality in our waterways from a whitebait perspective, and whether there are opportunities for council to be involved in works that are tailored to improve the whitebait fishery specifically, and native fish populations in general.

6.      A meeting to discuss options was held on the 1st of June with:

6.1.      Hans Rook, Joella Brown, John Cheyne (external whitebait experts)

6.2.      Matthew Brady (DoC)

6.3.      Stephen Cave (Assets)

6.4.      Campbell Leckie (Cape to City)

6.5.      Andy Hicks, Daniel Fake, Gary Rushworth (Science)

6.6.      Peter Beaven (Whitebaiter/Councillor)

7.      The topics discussed and recommendations made in this paper reflect outcomes from this meeting.

8.      The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (previously the Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board) has a long history of productive collaboration with the Department of Conservation, and more recently consultants (ex-DoC) and tangata whenua, to help whitebait populations.

9.      Ongoing work identifying inanga spawning sites has produced the following reports:

9.1.      Rook (1994) Preliminary Protection of Whitebait (Inanga) Spawning Areas in Hawke’s Bay. Conservation Advice Science Notes No 96, Department of Conservation.

9.2.      Cheyne and Rook (2015) Inanga Spawning Sites: Heretaunga Plains Rivers. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

9.3.      Cheyne and Rook (2016) Inanga Spawning Sites: Wairoa District Rivers & Streams. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

9.4.      Brown (2016) Inanga Spawning Sites: Maraetotara, Waipuk-Ocean Beach, Waimarama. Prepared for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

9.5.      Brown and Rook (2017) Tutaekuri Ngaruroro: Inanga Spawning Report.

10.    The life history of whitebait (5 migratory Galaxias species) has been outlined in a previous paper, but it can be generally thought of as follows:

10.1.    Adults spawn in riverine habitat, which is upper freshwater estuarine areas for inanga (this species dominates the regional whitebait catch, although koaro are noted from the Mohaka catch)

10.2.    Eggs hatch and larvae develop at sea for 3-6 months

10.3.    Transparent juveniles return to rivers and are the basis of the whitebait fishery

10.4.    Juveniles locate suitable freshwater habitat and grow into adults, which for inanga tends to be the lowland reaches of waterways. Banded kokopu and koaro tend to prefer steeper gradient streams

10.5.    Inanga are typically mature after 1 year, other whitebait species may take 3 or more years to mature

10.6.    At maturity, spawning occurs. Most inanga die after spawning, i.e. they are thought of as an annual species. But inanga can live for at least 5 years. Other species may spawn more than once.

11.    The role of HBRC in influencing the strength of the whitebait population, and particularly inanga, is clear when considering the following critical factors:

11.1.    Egg survival (governed by spawning habitat quality and climatic conditions)

11.2.    Larval growth and survival (governed by oceanic conditions)

11.3.    Recruitment success (influenced by whitebaiting pressure and access to adult habitat)

11.4.    Egg production (governed by the quantity and quality of adult habitat).

12.    The aspects underlined in section 11 are those that council have a mandated responsibility to manage and a huge opportunity to improve upon. The opportunity for improving habitat has been well accommodated in the proposed Long Term Plan, with enhancements to riparian areas, renewed efforts into addressing barriers to fish migration and expected improvements to overall ecosystem health likely to enhance the underlined aspects in section 11.

13.    There are 2 areas where focused attention would benefit either the fishery more specifically, or HBRC’s ability to monitor benefits of proposed work. These are:

13.1.    Complete the identification and protection of potential inanga spawning habitat throughout Hawke’s Bay

13.2.    Collaborate with the Department of Conservation and whitebaiters to collect information on the whitebait fishery (as an efficient measure of the benefits achieved from improving habitat).

14.    For context, and although we have not undertaken a formal quantitative exercise, it is not unreasonable to expect habitat improvements to increase whitebait numbers in Hawke’s Bay by a factor of 10. This is based on doubling egg survival and multiplying egg production by 5. The former being achieved by identifying and protecting all spawning habitat in Hawke’s Bay, the latter being achieved by removing barriers to migration and creating and enhancing wetland and riverine habitats. Removing barriers effectively creates ‘new habitat’, and improving habitat quality improves the survival and growth rates of fish. So there will be more space for more fish, with fish being typically bigger because the habitat quality is better: Bigger fish will produce many more eggs. For example, a 43 mm female produced 175 eggs. A 135 mm female produced 13,500 eggs.

15.    Each egg has the chance to turn into a whitebait. Although larval growth rate and survival in the ocean is probably largely outside our influence, there should be 10 times as many larvae entering the ocean which should result in a measureable increase in the whitebait run. A 10-fold increase in whitebait numbers would be larger than the significant variability that occurs in the volumes of whitebait in each year’s current ‘run’, and should be detectable if regular and reliable data can be collected over a long period of time.

16.    It is in HBRC’s interest to help monitor improvements in the whitebait fishery to justify the increased focus and cost of habitat enhancement work being undertaken in the region.

17.    The New Zealand smelt is also considered part of the whitebait fishery, but has been left out of this discussion for the following reasons:

17.1.    Many whitebaiters do not target smelt, as they consider it a less desirable meal. Although it is worth noting smelt appears quite popular to many Hawke’s Bay whitebaiters

17.2.    Their life history is slightly different, because smelt grow more whilst in the ocean, with adults entering rivers to spawn at a later stage of development. This means oceanic conditions have a larger influence on smelt

17.3.    They typically spawn in sandy habitat in backwaters that are 0.5 m to 2.5 m deep, rather than stranding their eggs in riparian habitats that are highly susceptible to mismanagement. This means general ecosystem health improvements (overall reductions in sediment, establishing shade to cool water and decrease oxygen stress etc.) will benefit smelt spawning

17.4.    At this stage we do not consider smelt would benefit as much from specific and targeted efforts to protect their spawning habitat, unlike the migratory Galaxias.

18.       Some whitebait populations (both Galaxias species and smelt), will complete their life cycle using lakes as a surrogate sea. In these situations, the return migration of their juveniles is not part of the official whitebait fishery. These ‘landlocked’ populations have been left out of the discussion here, although they do occur in Hawke’s Bay (e.g. banded kokopu in Tutira, koaro in Lake Waikaremoana). 

Proposed work in 2018/19

19.    Some recommendations in existing reports have been acted upon, but there remains some ‘low hanging fruit’ identified that will be completed as soon as practicable and within existing budgets during the 18/19 financial year. These include the following:

19.1.    Control blackberry / silver poplar at Clive inanga spawning site

19.2.    Remove ngaio at Tukituki spawning site

19.3.    Investigate any potential changes to the Tutaekuri backwater spawning site which may explain reduced spawning activity there

19.4.    Investigate solutions to restore fish passage over the perched bridge apron on the Waingongoro Stream (Waimarama Road, Peach Gully), and through culverts associated with the new Waingongoro diversion past the marae

19.5.    Investigate options to improve connectivity and enhance habitat conditions in the silt extraction areas of the lower Ngaruroro (old and currently active areas)

19.6.    Hold regular whitebait meetings (at least 6 monthly) within council to ensure threats and opportunities are clearly understood by relevant parts of council, and managed appropriately. Meetings could involve a schedule of site visits to clarify what needs to be done on a site by site basis.

Further science and monitoring

20.    Identify all spawning sites in Hawke’s Bay:

20.1.    Current efforts to identify spawning sites have concentrated on locating eggs, i.e. locating definite spawning sites. This starts by understanding the salinity patterns in the estuary, and then honing in on the spawning site by tracking spawning adults and then later locating eggs. This is very labour-intensive and can be slow going, but results in the identification of discrete patches of habitat known to be used for spawning. i.e. it is a ‘surgical’ approach

20.2.    Another approach is to more loosely define potential spawning habitat that covers the entire upper freshwater estuarine area. In other words, use salinity patterns alone to map out a larger area of potential habitat that requires protection through different management approaches. Identifying potential spawning habitat at this scale is less labour-intensive, because it does not necessitate the time consuming egg searches. It does, however, mean that some areas may be identified that are not currently used for spawning

20.3.    Protecting a larger area of potential spawning area accommodates changing habitat conditions (such as sea level rise or changing mouth dynamics), can result in new habitat being used for spawning (demonstrated by earlier Clive habitat protection works undertaken by Hans Rook) and also protects habitat that supports a variety of other biodiversity values

20.4.    At our current pace and approach, it would take many years to identify all currently used spawning habitat in Hawke’s Bay. Although it is worth noting that this ‘surgical’ approach will always be needed in situations where not all potential spawning area can be easily protected and priority areas need to be identified for protection

20.5.    The broader habitat identification approach would be achievable in 2 years, using local contractors that are already trained in this approach

20.6.    We will attempt to undertake some further inanga spawning habitat identification during the 18/19 year (further work inside the Cape to City footprint as well as the Ahuriri estuary)

20.7.    We will clarify the resourcing required to identify all potential spawning habitat within the Hawke’s Bay region during 2018/19. A rough order estimate of 50K from the 2019/20 is expected, for two years

20.8.    This would represent a small additional investment that should have significant regional impact for a key taonga species, and a quintessentially kiwi activity.

21.    Recommence joint DoC/HBRC annual whitebaiter meetings:

21.1.    These used to be held before the start of the whitebait season (i.e. in late July/early August) and were an effective means of relaying information to whitebaiting stakeholders. They stopped around 20 years ago

21.2.    Issues around licensing and managing stands (HBRC responsibility) as well as any issues around whitebaiting regulations (DoC responsibility) were discussed

21.3.    It was also a means by which much of the earlier work was resourced (whitebaiters helping with habitat protection) and reported upon (work done was reported back to the group)

21.4.    We propose to hold a joint DoC/HBRC whitebaiter meeting at the start of August. Details are still to be confirmed with DoC.

22.    Explore options for whitebaiters to supply fishing diaries to council as part of a Citizen Science monitoring programme, with the explicit purpose of monitoring increases in whitebait numbers due to regional improvements in habitat quality:

22.1.    This idea will be broached at the whitebaiter meeting at the start of August

22.2.    The intention is to provide a low cost conduit for HBRC to collect information that helps track improvements in a key ecological value that our proposed regional workstreams should drive.

Decision Making Process

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



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Management Options to Protect Whitebait Species” staff report, acknowledging that some work will be undertaken during the 2018-19 financial year, with a likelihood that a modest amount of further funding will likely be sought to accelerate this work stream during the 2019-20 annual plan development process.


Authored by:

Dr Andy Hicks

Team Leader/Principal Scientist - Water Quality and Ecology


Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management



There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee  

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Future Farming Initiative        


Reason for Report

1.      To outline proposed next steps in progressing the Future Farming Initiative.


2.      Council consulted on the Future Farming Initiative (FFI) as a part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan and the proposal was ultimately adopted on 27 June 2018.

3.      An initial scoping document commissioned in support of the proposal identified FFI’s intended outcomes as being:

“… to support the establishment of an independent farmer/grower-led initiative to lead on-farm research and innovation focused on identifying low cost, practical and achievable options for farmers to improve environmental outcomes on their farms.  This work will likely include growing the local database of monitored effective on-farm changes, as well as providing advice and data to HBRC on recommended regulatory/non-regulatory measures and/or incentives they can implement to best support/drive the achievement of improved resource management.”   


4.      In particular, at that time it was anticipated that the FFI would:

4.1.      Establish an independent, farmer/grower-led initiative to support the improved resilience of Hawke’s Bay’s natural resources, communities and farmers/growers. The Initiative will develop active partnerships and funding relationships with additional stakeholders alongside HBRC including existing industry bodies and central government agencies (MfE, MPI and MBIE’s Provincial Growth Fund), while maintaining improved natural resource management outcomes as a core purpose.  These partnerships will include organisations and institutions at regional and national levels, effectively creating a ‘centre of excellence’ for sustainable land management and agricultural innovation in Hawke’s Bay.

4.2.      Identify and collect evidence of low cost, high return options for farmers/grower to adapt to changing future needs, risks and opportunities, including a focus on environmental performance.  This would include utilising existing and collecting new on-farm data to;

4.3.      Provide input into HBRC policies, plans and programmes to support the objectives of the Initiative.

4.4.      Present proven, accessible and achievable options to farmers/growers for their businesses.

4.5.      Develop this evidence base from leading Hawke’s Bay farmers/growers who are achieving positive, balanced and integrated outcomes for their land, businesses and quality of life, in order to efficiently and credibly develop options for change that are relevant to Hawke’s Bay contexts.

4.6.      Expand on approaches to change that focus on technology adoption and land use change, to include exploring the potential for farm/land design and management changes to provide low cost, high value options for farmers/growers to improve environmental, economic and social outcomes on their land and region-wide.

4.7.      Identify and use and objective framework (i.e. the ‘6 Capitals’) as the basis of a comprehensive framework for assessing outcomes, recognising that design, management, technology or land use changes usually impact multiple outcomes.

4.8.      Work with farmers, practitioners and stakeholders to improve region-wide outcomes using local and non-local evidence, case studies and networks to provide farmers and growers with options and support that they can have confidence will work.

4.9.      Support the design and development of adoption models that utilise existing sector experiences and learnings, as well as leveraging the strengths of regional farmer, practitioner, research and institutional networks to determine the most effective approaches.

5.      Staff propose that in July an ad-hoc committee comprising the GM’s for both Strategic Planning and Integrated Catchment Management and two Councillors are given authority to appoint a 7-8 person Steering Committee with at least four farmer/growers with demonstrated commitment to the desired outcomes, and high standing in the Hawke’s Bay community.  Several individuals have already been identified and have expressed a willingness to be involved.  It is proposed that for the first year, the Initiative is supported by HBRC in terms of administration.

6.      The Committee will be tasked initially with the following Work Programme:

6.1.      Establish Terms of Reference, Steering Committee, stakeholder co-funding and partnership opportunities within first 6 months.

6.2.      Oversee the formal establishment of the appropriate entity (e.g. a Trust) necessary to execute FFI’s activities through to the end of Year 3.  The ultimate aspiration may be for FFI to function independent of core funding and support from HBRC thereafter.

7.      It is anticipated that a Year 1 Budget of approximately $50,000 to $75,000 will be required to cover meeting costs, set-up costs and, possibly, development of an EOI and full business case for a Provincial Growth Fund application to support FFI’s work programme.  This budget will also support the development of detailed programme development including the early design phase, refined problem definition, work programme prioritisation, community engagement and communication.  Through this process FFI will also focus on identifying and engaging other local and national partners and stakeholders to support and leverage the programme.

8.      FFI’s Steering Committee will target the establishment of permanent governance and programme management within the first 6 months, formally detailing outcomes, timelines, reporting frameworks and so on in relation to FFI’s remaining $550-$575,000 funding pool.  In the interim, regular progress updates will be reported to Council though this Committee.

Decision Making Process

9.      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.



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the Future Farming Initiative staff report.



Authored and Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management


There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Biosecurity Operational Plans


Reason for Report

1.      To provide Council’s operational plans to the Committee.


2.      Council is the management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Pest Management Plan – RPMP) and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan - RPPMP).

3.      Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that the management agency for a pest management plan prepares and reviews the operational plan for each Plan annually. Operational Plans have been prepared for both the RPMP and RPPMP and these are attached for Committee reference and are available to other parties on request.

2018-19 Operational Plans

4.      Staff believe that the current operational plans have proven to be effective and therefore with the exception of wide scale predator control only minor changes from the 2017-18 plans are proposed.

5.      Key RPMP work programmes included in the 2018-19 operational plan include:

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

5.2.      The implementation of stage two of the Cape to City wide scale predator control has been completed. Already there are some clear transformational opportunities for predator pest management within the region arising from the project. In particular there is the opportunity to consider a regional predator control programme beginning implementation in 2020 or 2021. Predator Free Hawkes Bay is currently being developed as a project as the mechanism to roll out regional predator control.

6.      There has been no requirement for Council to undertake any activities under the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. No changes are proposed to this operational plan. The Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Operational Plan is attached.

Financial and Resource Implications

7.      There are no additional financial or resource implications from the operational plans.

Decision Making Process

8.      Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Biosecurity Act 1993 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.



1.      That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Biosecurity Operational Plans” staff report, including the:

1.1       Plant Pest Operational Plan 2018-19

1.2       Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2018-19

1.3       Animal Pest Operational Plan 2018-19.



Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services


Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management





Plant Pest Operational Plan 2018-19


Under Separate Cover


Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2018-19


Under Separate Cover


Animal Pests Operational Plan 2018-19


Under Separate Cover



Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Enviroschools Update


Reason for Report

1.      It has been over two years since we last updated Council on the Enviroschools kaupapa here in Hawke’s Bay.  We have however provided termly newsletters to keep you up to date on action being undertaken in our local schools.

2.      Today we will update Council on results from the recent nationwide census.  Kristen Price, Operations Manager for Toimata Foundation will present the findings via Powerpoint.

3.      Advise Council on current funding partnerships. This includes the recent LTP submissions to NCC, HDC and CHBDC.  We have also submitted to Wairoa District Council.

4.      Update on activities and highlights in the last six months.


5.      Enviroschools and HBRC

5.1.      Over 50 schools and kindergartens participate in the programme between CHB and Wairoa.  The programme began in Hawke’s Bay in 2003.  Nationally over 1,100 schools, early childhood centres and community groups are part of the programme.

5.2.      The aim of Enviroschools is to provide environmental education that fosters a generation of people who instinctively think and act sustainably.  Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has coordinated this programme since 2003 when the first schools were signed up.

5.3.      The Regional Council is responsible for the coordination of the programme in our region.  We contract three part-time facilitators who work with Central Hawke’s Bay, Wairoa, and Napier/Hastings schools. We also provide resources and assistance to our local schools and our kindergarten partners.  In 2015 HBRC signed a partnership agreement with the Heretaunga and Napier Kindergarten Associations to deliver the programme into their kindergartens.  They have trained their own teaching staff to deliver this programme.

Funding support

5.4.      The marketing and communications team acknowledge the support for Enviroschools by Council.  As put forward in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.  This will see the role of Community Engagement Coordinator to focus 100% on Environmental Education.

5.5.      In addition, $30,000 has been allocated to support the operating budget for this programme.  These funds will be added to the current level of funding and be used towards:

5.5.1.   $7,000 - Teacher Workshops x 3 across the region to include teacher release subsidy, resources, facilitation.

5.5.2.   $10,000 - Student wananga x 3 across the region $10,000 – to include transport, koha, accommodation, food, facilitation, teacher release time.

5.5.3.   $10,000 - Enviroschools facilitation, resources, support for kindergarten association – increase facilitation into schools, source and supply new resources, assistance for kindergarten facilitators to attend professional development opportunities.

5.5.4.   $3,000 – Professional Development opportunities for school facilitation team.

Decision Making Process

6.      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.



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


Authored by:

Sally Chandler

Community Engagement Coordinator


Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager
Corporate Services




There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Pandora Pond Update


Reason for Report

1.      To provide an update on the February 2018 recreational water quality exceedances in the Pandora Pond, Ahuriri Estuary.


2.      Between 12 February 2018 and 19 February 2018 Pandora Pond exceeded the national recreational water quality guidelines of 280 cfu/100 ml three times.

3.      In response, HBRC commenced a monitoring programme aimed to identify any potential ongoing source of contamination, and to assist the Medical Officer of Health in assessing the risks to the public from contact recreation.

4.      An update was provided earlier this year to the Regional Planning Committee outlining the results of the investigation, however results from the faecal source tracking were not yet available.

5.      The key findings of the Pandora Pond investigation are:

5.1.      That the cause of the elevated counts in February 2018 is unknown

5.2.      This pattern of exceedances was only repeated following periods of rainfall

5.3.      That faecal source tracking of surface scums adjacent to the Napier City Council inflatable taken on 24 February 2018 was linked to bird sources

5.4.      Elevated bacterial levels were observed from the Thames/Tyne catchments more frequently than elsewhere in the Estuary

5.5.      On 7 March 2018 cow faeces was identified as the source of bacteria from the Thames/Tyne catchment.  This was on an incoming tide which may indicate a distant source.  However the higher bacterial result at this site compared to the upstream Railway Bridge site would indicate that it is more likely than not that this originated from this catchment.  Analysis of the Railway Bridge sample has been requested to clarify this.

6.      HBRC are working with staff from NCC to determine what this source may be, if it is in the Thames/Tyne catchment.

7.      HBRC will continue to work with NCC to understand water quality and movement throughout the Ahuriri Estuary, including the Pandora Pond.

Decision Making Process

8.      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.



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Pandora Pond Update” staff report.



Authored by:

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality


Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management



There are no attachments for this report.


Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: July 2018 Hot Spot / Freshwater Improvement Projects Update


Reason for Report

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


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





Tutira (FIF)

Whakaki (FIF)





$200,000 - 4 years

$200,000 - 

5 years


Summary Review - Hot Spot 2017-18

3      Our aim was to use this $1m fund to accelerate existing plans that would contribute to freshwater outcomes across the Hawke’s Bay. We achieved this and more.

4      We planted over 31,000 plants. We built over 17km of fencing. We gathered more information on our coastal marine seabed.

5      Our investment of $1 resulted in $1.39m of Hot Spot work being completed.

Hot Spot Fund plus contributions:  nearly $1.4m






Tutira (FIF)


FY17-18 Budget







Year end






$65,000 ($135k*)


Other contributions





NIWA $42k

MPI $25k

Sampling $6k

MfE $30k  ($144k*)

MTT $16k   ($26k*)




$ 1,389,190.00






$111k actual spend to date

$370k = what we get for our $200k


* committed, although rolled into Year 2.

6      Summary of planting and fencing:


31,370 Plants

17.3km Fencing



8 km



1.9 km



2.6 km



4.8 km


7      While doing this we built stronger relationships with tangata whenua, landowners, communities, other agencies and schools.  We worked collaboratively with a shared common purpose: to enhance and protect our precious environment.

8      Another positive outcome has been our own internal growth. Staff identified better ways of working and collaborating to get the best outcomes.  Throughout this project, they were coming together, testing their existing practices against new theories and research, while sharing useful tools and methodologies across groups.

9      The seeds have been sown. Positive engagement from our communities is increasing.  To continue this good work, and to keep this encouraging momentum going, we must carry on building relationships that open doors, and dialogue, to share knowledge on how to restore our environment together. 

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

11     Project vision: ‘To restore the mauri of Lakes Tūtira, Waikōpiro, and Orakai, making a place that families can happily return to, and where children can swim.’  By empowering and aligning community, implementing well-researched actions now, the goal of restoring the mauri of Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro, making them swimmable by 2020, is achievable and realistic.

12     Project objectives:

Objective one

Iwi/hapū, māori landowners, farmers, community and local authorities are aligned in their vision for Tūtira through establishment of an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) and Farm Environmental Management Plans.

Objective two

Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) will develop and establish a cultural monitoring programme (CMP) and will support the water quality education programme in Tūtira.

Objective three

The Papakiri Stream will be reconnected to Lake Tūtira, and an outlet will be created by 2021 at the southern end of the lake complex, to provide longitudinal flow and fish passage, improving the mauri of the lake.

Objective four

Sediment mitigations will be established at critical source areas within the Kahikanui and Te Whatu-Whewhe sub-catchments, reducing sediment entering the lake system.

Objective five

An aeration curtain is installed in Lake Tūtira, improving the water quality to a swimmable level


13     Project Manager:  Te Kaha Hawaikirangi.

14     Project progress update: Project Health and Safety Plans have been created, reviewed and implemented.

15     Both the Project Governance Group and Project Team have each held two meetings to date. Furthermore, we have met with forestry and dairy representatives within the catchment.

16     Contractor Billy Brough has made headway on our first deliverable, creating the Lake Tūtira Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP).  The first community workshop will be at the Tutira School on 28 July. Our expectations are to have this ICMP completed in September 2018.

17     Engineering designs for sediment traps and a low flow connection for the Papakiri stream are completed. Construction to commence in the 2018-19 financial year.

18     Continued observation of the aeration system in Waikōpiro, specifically over this upcoming summer, aims to provide sufficient data for our science team to make an informed decision either to proceed, or not to proceed, with the installation of an aeration system in Tūtira, for the 2018-2019 financial year.

19     HBRC has received continued support on the project with project partner Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT). MTT has made initial progress on the development of the Mauri Monitoring Programme.

20     Project budget update: The total project cost $3.35m.  This is spread over four years and funded by; MfE’s Freshwater Improvement Fund ($1.55m), HBRC ($1.73m) and Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust $76k.

21     Due to the late project start date, when MfE officially signed the Deed on 22 March 2018, our budgeted year one spend is less than originally planned for. Therefore we requested $135k be rolled into HBRC’s next financial year project budget.  This has been approved.  We have also worked with MfE to roll their contribution into the next financial year too. 

22     Below is a brief description of the activities within the project including the deliverable timeframes and costs.





Integrated Catchment Management Plan

Work with the community to understand their vision/aspirations for the catchment.  Identify other agency initiatives and coordinate for better decisions made about land use, water resources and infrastructure within the Lake Tutira catchment with the overarching objective of improving the Mauri and water quality of Lake Tutira.



Farm Environmental Management Plans

Working with the community to establish farm environmental management plans.  These will include some general farm information, identification of environmental risks, recorded good management practices and actions for improvement.



Farmer Incentive / Subsidy Scheme

To assist and encourage the implementation of Farm Environmental Management Plans, a funding scheme for landowners will be established for land action improvements (planting, fencing etc.)



Papakiri Stream Low Flow Connection

Re-connection of the Papakiri Stream, low flow only. The low flow connection will allow 50% of the flow of Papakiri into the lake, while restricting flows during heavy rain events, which transport sediment.  



Diversion Strengthening (Papakiri Stream)

This work is proposed in conjunction with the Papakiri low flow connection work above, but can be considered a standalone initiative. Strengthening of the existing diversion embankment through reconstructing, raising and lengthening the 1,000m stop bank. This will reduce the over flow of water into the lake during heavy rain events which normally transports sediment adding to the legacy issue.



Lake Tutira Air Curtain

Aeration bubbler to be constructed and installed into Lake Tūtira. The aeration is to address legacy nutrient levels within the sediment in the bottom of the lake, and stabilise the water column reducing frequency of algae blooms.



Southern Outlet

Strong community desire to see an outlet connection between Waikopiro Lake and Lake Orakai at the southern end of the Lake complex. It has the potential to change the flow and direction of currents within the lakes creating a longitudinal flow. And viable fish passage into the lakes, which will improve mauri within the lakes.



Tūtira Regional Park Sediment Traps

Sediment traps constructed on Tutira Regional Park sub-catchments Kahikanui and Te Whatu Whewhe.



Monitoring site equipment construct and upgrade Capex and regime

New telemetered flow site and WQ equipment installed on Papakiri Stream, plus upgrades for the new buoy in Tūtira and the installation of the old Tūtira buoy into Waikōpiro.

A monitoring programme to measure effectiveness of works implemented and inform future action. When the buoys are in place real time monitoring for oxygen, temp and chlorophyll a. With monthly monitoring for water samples.



MTT Cultural Health Index Monitoring

A cultural monitoring programme will be developed, to measure mauri and the effectiveness of the activities implemented, also building hapū capacity in monitoring.



Riparian Enhancement of Lake Tūtira

Ongoing planting around Lake Tūtira



Project Management role, consents, admin and Governance Group costs

Across the life of the project (4 years).



Land Services Advisor

Position to coordinate and draft ICPM and implement as well as coordination of FEMP drafting and implementation.



Health and Safety, Communication + admin costs.

Communications, promotion, community engagement, Koha. Project Health and Safety plans.








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

23     Objective: We want to revitalise Whakakī Lake while supporting sustainable land use. Our goal is to help the water recover so tuna are fit for consumption and people can swim safely.  Project Manager: Nicolas Caviale- Delzescaux.

24     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 these proposed project deliverables.



Consents required

Waikatuku alignment

Year 1: March 2018-June 2018

Water take diversion consent


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

25     Prior to obtaining these consents, we had planned to work with the community to refine the design and delivery of our project deliverables, once our application had been successful. This was shown in our project budget $12.5k for community engagement the first 4 months. Across the 5 year project community engagement totalled $67,600. 

26     Unfortunately these consenting conditions made it difficult. Noting any expenses incurred before this are not eligible for reimbursement/couldn’t be part of the project costs as MfE funding is not guaranteed until a deed of funding has been signed by both parties.

27     MfE acknowledge the additional funding conditions will result in a delayed submission of our application, and they are happy to extend this Stage 2 timeframe up to April 2019.

28     HBRC staff visited Iwitea Marae on 28 May 2018 to provide the Whakakī community with an update on what we were doing in the catchment; and what we needed to do to progress with our FIF application. Furthermore, Iain Maxwell provided an update to the community on our LTP and what this meant for the Whakakī community.

29     HBRC were warmly greeted and both representatives from both Whakakī Lake Trust and Iwitea Marae confirmed their support and commitment to our overall objectives. 

30     It was agreed that HBRC would return to hold consultation hui’s to provide further information on the proposed consenting deliverables for the FIF application.  These will be held at Whakakī Marae on Saturday 30 June, followed by a second at the Whakakī Lake Trusts AGM on Saturday 14 July. These meetings are to inform the community on the steps HBRC needs to follow, if the community aspires to support the FIF projects and its activities requiring a consent.

31     Hot Spot fund 17-18 spend in Whakakī: To show our on-going commitment to the community we spent the remaining $175k to focus mainly on stock exclusion from key areas that covered both Iwitea and Whakakī, while also preparing the next steps by extending alternative water supplies for stock.

32     Whakakī /Hereheretau Station, riparian fencing: 1 km of fence was built along the Rahui channel including the Urupa.  Furthermore, a successful, first ever, community planting day on the 16 June saw an enthusiastic team of over 40 people (including tamariki) from the community turn up and plant 750 native trees alongside the Rahui Channel.

33     Alternative water supply: the material is on site however due to wet conditions, water tanks have not been installed in their final location on top of the hill. This will be done when conditions are safer.

34     Whakakī 2N (Iwitea): The community wanted Te Paraoa lake fenced off. This will result in a 3.8km fence erected. To date 75% of the fence built and local fencer is committed to complete this. Unfortunately, work has been delayed due to extreme water levels during May. This fence will protect a biodiversity jewel and a heaven for bird life.

35     A lot of work has been done lately both around the lake and in the upper catchment. Noting a meeting between Andy Hicks and the Whakakī Lake Trust (WLT) water monitoring team (23 May 2018).  The meeting helped develop synergies between tangata whenua and the WLT. The WLT is very interested in knowing more about the lake and taking part to the monitoring work. They asked for guidance and assistance on water monitoring instruments.

Hot Spot: Tukituki River

36     Objective: The objective of the Tukituki hot spot project is to work with landowners in priority sub-catchments to help improve the water quality of the Tukituki through riparian and wetland planting.

37     The Tukituki River Catchment is an important waterbody to the people of Hawkes Bay. During summer, low flows and higher temperatures mean that toxic algae can form in the Tukituki River impacting on humans, dogs, stock and aquatic life. The objective of the Tukituki hotspot project is to work with landowners in priority sub-catchments to help improve the water quality of the Tukituki through riparian and wetland planting.

Tukituki $100k


Original Budget

Final Spend

Makirikiri restoration



The Hunt Family wetland



Flood fencing demonstration



Priority catchment works (Papanui)






38    Note:  Although not included in the HS funding, there is work being undertaken by LM team at Lake Whatuma.

39     The Makirikiri restoration project, just outside of Takapau, is a demonstration site for riparian management, for engaging the local community and aligning regional water quality objectives with wider manawhenua values.  The site was identified by members of the taiwhenua as a culturally significant site, during hui to discuss the development of a mauri monitoring framework.

40     We completed two rounds of weed control and other weeds infestations in particular blackberry. A 530 metre long fence has been built on the site. A whakawaatea hosted by the local marae occurred on 11 February with councillors from both HBRC and CHBDC attending. HBRC also helped run visits with school groups to the site.

41     Planting work has been put on hold for now to allow appropriate time to for the relevant parties work though some issues and risks that need to be addressed, managed and resolved (e.g. health and safety, liability, property rights, public access). This avoids putting HBRC in a situation that could have had serious consequences later. Taking a bit more time now to reach informed agreements will also have the advantage of gaining better weed control before planting.  It also highlights some issues we will face in future; trying to deal with any similar projects with public access and /or multiply owned Maori land.

42     Fortunately, neighbouring Brookwood Station is also undertaking a substantial riparian planting project (5,000 + plants). Owner, Justin King was happy to provide an alternate planting day opportunity for the Takapau Primary School. HBRC staff and members of the Taiwhenua were also on hand to help.

43     The unexpected benefit. We diverted the remaining funds, and approximately 5,200 pre-ordered plants, to assist with six riparian projects in the Papanui ‘priority’ sub catchment. These projects were with landowners who had already invested in stock exclusion and shown commitment to future planting. Without this funding becoming available, we may not have been in a position to assist this year.  These projects also involved two local primary schools.

44     Hunt wetland project, situated alongside the Takapau Ormondville Road, is to restore a hectare of wetland back to native plants. At the beginning of the project, rank grass covered the area with minimal weed problems.  We completed two consecutive spot sprayings to allow long and dense grass to break down in preparation for winter planting, and removed willows and broom.  Fencing and gate access for vehicles and pedestrians were built, and a pull over area created for parking was established.

45     Although the site has become wetter this winter than anticipated, a contracted team planted all 4,000 plus plants, with the final ‘mighty tōtara’ being planted by three generations of the Hunt Family.

46     Educational/informational signage is up at the site to describe the plants and the water quality benefits of a wetland. The official opening of this site occurred on 27June 2018.

47     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, installed on the 21 March, consists of flexible fiberglass standards and biodegradable polywire.

48     This area flooded recently. Sections of the new trial fence was submerged approximately 1 metre under water. Once the water had receded, the landowner inspected the fence and was pleased to see it still standing and intact. So far, it is proving to be a better solution for these areas than conventional fencing. This flood fencing cost is less than $1 per lineal metre, and any repairs required after flooding are quick and low cost.

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

Ahuriri $200k  Project Lead: Anna Madarasz-Smith


Original Budget

Final Spend

Ficopomatus removal



Ahuriri Catchment Land Action Plan



Catchment works



Catchment Hydrology







49     Ficopomatus removal: To restore water flow between the upper and lower estuary, we (in partnership with Mana Ahuriri Trust and assistance from DoC) removed 216 tonnes of invasive marine tubeworm from the estuary.  Further removal of a small site is scheduled for June 30.

50     Catchment works: Works on the ground identified in the Ahuriri Catchment Land Action Plan, which focused on landslide erosion (the major long-term source of sediment) and streambank erosion (the regular and short-term source). We have successfully worked with 12 different landowners and implemented erosion control measures, establishing wetland and riparian filters and livestock exclusion from waterways. Some of these works are still ongoing and will span the winter planting season.

51     The ‘Hot Spot’ fund assisted landowners with:  Planting 5,320 native plants to develop wetland filter areas, stabilize gullies, and hill slopes this winter. Another 1,500 native plants will be planted next winter in fenced areas. The planting of 925 exotic plants (poplars and willows) to stabilize slopes and streambanks. The construction of 7,988 metres of fences as part of the requirement for establishing these plants as well as excluding stock from waterways and estuary margins.

52     The cost of the catchment works programme to council has been $128,000. The contribution put in by the 12 landowners involved is approximately $87,190 for establishment costs of planting and fence construction. There will be ongoing costs for these landowners for the maintenance of the works.

53     The programme provided the opportunity for the trails of two new protectors for the establishment of seedling trees on hill slopes in grazed areas. This will increase the variety of tree species that can be used for erosion control. 

54     Many of the landowners are keen to do more work next year. For some, this opportunity just accelerated existing programmes, for others it was a first, “the seed has been sown”.

55     We used the balance of our budget to prepare two sites, weed spraying, for plantings to occur in the new financial year.  We are working with Wharerangi Marae, Hohepa and DoC to enhance areas along the Taipo Stream. Together we identified two sites where we could make a start. One of these sites is next to an Inanga (whitebait) spawning area.  

56     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. A scoping report has been received and work is underway looking at contaminant pathways via specific Ahuriri Source model.

Hot SpotTe Karamū

57     Objective: Progress the Karamū Enhancement Strategy in priority areas to improve water quality and biodiversity, ecosystem health, improve visual amenity and aesthetic values, promote public awareness, improve community well-being, sense of ownership, and social connection.



Project lead: Antony Rewcastle

10,041 Plants

10,016 native 25 exotic


2.6 km Fencing







Opaka, Karamū-Clive River





Brookvale, Mangateretere Stream





Pakipaki, Hinetemoa Springs & Awanui Stream





Bridge Pa, Karewarewa-Paritu Stream

25 Weeping willows

16 Natives




40-00 Kahurānaki (Te Hauke) Marae planting






58     Opaka, Old Ngaruroro (Karamu-Clive) River, left bank above Whakatu Railway Bridge. Old man’s beard control, silver poplar control, fencing for stock exclusion and revegetation planting completed. 5yr maintenance programme in progress.

59     Brookvale wetland – Mangateretere Stream. Protection and enhancement of the stream to exclude stock and improve water quality, habitat and biodiversity and demonstrate best practise land management.  Arboriculture, weed control, fencing and revegetation planting completed. Five year maintenance programme in progress.

60     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 completed.  Revegetation enhancement planting in progress.  5yr maintenance programme in progress.

61     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 to create fence alignment, repair stock bridge and fencing completed.  Enhancement planting and 5yr maintenance programme in progress.

62     Kahurānaki (Te Hauke), Kahurānaki Stream. Weed control and enhancement planting on the tributary to Lake Poukawa and connection to biodiversity priority areas, with representatives from Te Hauke Marae. Arboriculture, weed control and revegetation planting completed. 5yr maintenance programme in progress.

Hot Spot:  Marine

63     Objective: To work with the Hawke’s Bay Marine and Coastal Group (HBMAC) and other stakeholders to build understanding of our coastal environment by investigating subtidal habitats and improve our understanding of terrestrial impacts on the coastal environment by developing a hydrodynamic model of the bay.

64     Council put $150,000 into this project, and because of this we were able to leverage a further $67,000 (NIWA $42k, MPI $25k) meaning that we got $223,000 for our $150k investment.

Marine $150k.  Project Lead: Anna Madarasz-Smith


Original Budget

Final Spend

Collaborative study: Wairoa Hard



Development of a Hydrodynamic Model







65     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 $100k being funded by the HBRC Hot Spot fund.  This 14 day mapping study is scheduled for March/April 2018, with further work to be defined with PTSGs in the area.

66     Hydrodynamic model: Our plan was to decide on a model platform and outline focus areas for the model, boundary conditions and establish a field-sampling plan.

67     Focus areas: We contracted Cawthron Research Institute to provide an initial assessment of water quality in Hawke’s Bay. They analysed 15 years of satellite imagery focusing on proxies for chla, suspended sediment and sea surface temperature. This analysis is to produce maps of mean concentrations and trends over time for these parameters, which will highlight problem areas within the Hawke’s Bay CMA.

68     We have received the draft version of this report. It provides useful insight into where the highest concentrations of sediment and areas of highest productivity can be found. This information, in future, will inform further field investigations.

69     Boundary conditions are the external forces that influence a model domain (waves; wind; currents; nutrient loads; suspended sediment etc). It appears likely that further information will need to be collected since the boundary conditions currently available are for physical parameters and do not include water quality such as nutrients, suspended sediment and chlorophyll a.  Council staff have fostered a relationship with GNS and NIWA where they are collecting offshore water samples for us during scientific cruises to begin to inform understanding of the chemistry of the oceanic currents that influence Hawke’s Bay waters. HBRC will capitalise on this relationship and continue water sample collection where possible.

70     Sampling plan; Council staff are currently working on a field-sampling plan to tie in with the marine hot spot fund and the Hawkes Bay Marine and Coastal Group research roadmap.

71     HBRC staff have been examining the options for hydrodynamic modelling of Hawke’s Bay. This involved consultations with different consultants (DHI; Metocean; Advisian) who have existing models of Hawke’s Bay. We had hoped to use these models as a base to develop on. Unfortunately, these models were built with a specific purpose; therefore, they are not appropriate for our requirements. After further discussions with consultants about their approaches to modelling, it became apparent that further fieldwork was needed to concentrate on focus areas for the modelling and to establish boundary conditions.

72     Once staff have received the offshore water quality analysis; the Cawthron satellite imagery analysis and had a chance to evaluate existing hydrodynamic models of the bay. A workshop will be held to develop a focused sampling plan moving forward to inform the development of a hydrodynamic model.  This is planned for August 2018.

Decision Making Process

73     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.



That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “July 2018 Hot Spots /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



Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management




There are no attachments for this report.  


Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: July 2018 Operational Activities Update


Reason for Report

1.      To provide an update (attached) on the activities of Council’s Regulation and Operations teams to the Environment and Services Committee.

Decision Making Process

2.      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.



That the Environment & Services Committee receives the “Operational Activities Update” staff report.


Authored by:

Gary Clode

Acting Group Manager Regional Assets

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management




Operational update for 4 July 2018 ESC meeting




Operational update for 4 July 2018 ESC meeting

Attachment 1


Operational update for 4 July 2018 ESC meeting

Attachment 1



Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 04 July 2018

Subject: Discussion of Items Not on the Agenda


Reason for Report

1.     This document has been prepared to assist Committee Members to note the Items of Business Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 5.

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


Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed












1.2.   Minor items (for discussion only)



Raised by












[1] HBRC Sednet modelling

[2]     eKOS, November 2017 ‘Hawke's Bay Climate Resilience  Programme: a framework for the climate change component of the Hawke’s Bay [Regional Council] Long-Term Plan.’