Meeting of the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 9 March 2011

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item      Subject                                                                                            Page

 

1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the  Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee held on 9 November 2010

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee held on 9 November 2010

5.         Actions from Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee meetings

6.         Consideration of General Business Items

Decision Items

7.         Mahia Community Wastewater Project - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

8.         Regional Pest Management Strategy - Discussion Document

Information or Performance Monitoring

9.         Multi-Value Assessment of Napier Urban Waterways:  Prioritisation for Enhancement

10.       Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme - Rivers: Review Levels of Service

11.       General Business  

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: Actions from Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee meetings        

 

INTRODUCTION:

1.   On the list attached as Appendix 1 are items raised at Council meetings that require actions or follow-ups.  All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expect to be completed and a brief status comment for each action.  Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

2.   Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Actions from AMB Meetings

 

 

  


Actions from AMB Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Actions from Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee Meetings

 

The following are a list of items raised at Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment for each action. Once the items have been completed and reported back to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

 

 

11 November 2010

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

 

5

A question on the existence of a local irrigator’s user group; it is believed no specific group still exists however this will be checked on and reported back.

MA

Feb 2011

This informal group was brought together prior to Council becoming involved in water harvesting projects.  Water User Groups have now superseded this group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee  

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: Mahia Community Wastewater Project - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)        

 

REASON FOR REPORT:

1.      Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Wairoa District Council are working collaboratively to establish carbon sequestration forests and irrigate wastewater onto land.

2.      There has been a significant community engagement process led by Wairoa District Council to gain resource consent and environment court approval for this project to proceed. The community engagement process has led to five Mahia linked Marae seeking a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed with WDC and HBRC. The  MOU is to provide a framework to guide decision making and engagement with regard to the forestry / wastewater project site and Whangawehi catchment

Background

3.      The proposed MOU helps provide some confidence to local Marae that cultural concerns regarding the waste water land treatment and forestry activities, are being considered and risks appropriately managed.

4.      With the consultation on the wastewater project local iwi have become resolved to have a more active environmental guardianship role with regard to the wider Whangawehi catchment that the waste water treatment facility is located in. They see the development of a wider catchment management plan as an important tool to achieving this stronger environmental protection role. Hawkes Bay Regional Council’s principal commitment in the MOU is to assist the community to develop a wider Whangawehi catchment management plan.

5.      The Marae representatives understand that Council’s commitment is to provide, where appropriate, staff technical expertise, time, and facilitate access to other subsidy or incentive resources that are available. There is no community expectation that resources will automatically be made available for the catchment management plan, but rather that Council will endeavour to support the plan with appropriate resources where possible.

6.      Marae representatives would prefer the MOU to be signed by the Mayor of WDC and the Chair of HBRC as the most senior representatives of their organisation.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

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

7.1.   Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

7.2.   Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

7.4.   The persons affected by this decision have been involved in the development of the attached Memorandum of Understanding that is the subject of this report.

7.5.   The options have been considered by the group that has developed the attached Memorandum of Understanding that is the subject of this report.

7.6.   Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

7.7.   Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend Council:

1.    Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2.    Endorse the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Mahia community marae.

3.    Delegate signing authority to the Council Chairman.

 

 

 

Campbell Leckie

Biosecurity Manager

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

1View

Memorandum of Understanding

 

 

  


Memorandum of Understanding

Attachment 1

 






HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee  

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: Regional Pest Management Strategy - Discussion Document        

 

REASON FOR REPORT:

1.     The Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) is to be reviewed in 2011. At their meeting in November 2010 the Committee agreed to a process associated with that review.

2.     As an initial stage in that process the Committee agreed that a discussion document be published seeking feedback from the community on some of the key issues that have arisen since the current RPMS was adopted in December 2006.

3.     This report presents the Draft Discussion document for Committee consideration and adoption.

BACKGROUND:

Review timetable

4.     The process and timeframe for the review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) is as follows:

Feb 2011

Mar 2011

Apr 2011

May 2011

Aug 2011

Aug 2011

Sep 2011

Nov 2011

Dec 2011

Feb 9 AM&B Committee

Considers Final draft of discussion document

Regional Pest Management Strategy  discussion document out for public comment

Public comment period for discussion document closes

11 May AM&B

Committee

Considers submissions on discussion document

11 Aug AM&B

Committee

Considers proposed reviewed RPMS for public submission

RPMS publically notified for submissions

Public submissions close

9 Nov AM&B Committee

Considers

Completed revised RPMS

Revised Strategy adopted by Council

 

Dissemination of information

5.     Staff propose:

5.1.   The discussion document be circulated in hard copy to key stakeholders under cover of a letter advising of Council willingness to meet with them to discuss any particular issues or concerns.

5.2.   The discussion document be posted on Council website

5.3.   Press releases be provided to regional and community newspapers alerting the public to the review process and the discussion document.

5.4.   Public meetings only be held if a significant number of issues are raised by a particular sector of the community or a specific issue attracts significant interest.

Governance process

6.     The review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) will require consideration of submissions on the discussion document as well as consideration of submissions both written and verbal on the Proposed Reviewed RPMS.

7.     Staff suggests the consideration of submissions could be handled by. 

7.1.   The full Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee.

7.2.   A subcommittee of the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee made up of; the Committee Chair Councillor Rose, two or three other Councillors, and ex officio the Council Chairman.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

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

1.1.   The review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy is required under the Biosecurity Act 1993, which includes a requirement for public consultation.  Accordingly in complying with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act, Council will be meeting Local Government Act 2002 requirements.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommends that Council:

1.      Notes that in complying with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993, it will meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.      Adopt, subject to any changes agreed by the Committee, the Discussion document for the Review of Council’s Regional Pest Management Strategy.

3.      Agree that consideration of submissions on both the Discussion document and the Proposed Reviewed Regional Pest Management Strategy be handled by:

3.1.       Either the full Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee, or.

3.2.       A subcommittee of the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee made up of; the Committee Chair Councillor Rose, two or three other Councillors, and ex officio the Council Chairman.

 

 

 

 

Campbell Leckie

Biosecurity Manager

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

1View

Draft RPMS Discussion Document

 

 

  


Draft RPMS Discussion Document

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Regional

Pest Management strategy

 

Discussion Document

 

 

 

Issues for Consideration

 

 

 

 

March 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Draft RPMS Discussion Document

Attachment 1

 

Table of Contents

·             Purpose.............................................................................................................. 1

·             The Process...................................................................................................... 2

·             Background...................................................................................................... 2

·             RPMS Highlights............................................................................................... 2

·             A Guide to Providing Comment.................................................................... 3

·             Plant Pests....................................................................................................... 4

·       Privet.................................................................................................................... 4

·       Purple ragwort..................................................................................................... 4

·       Plant Pest Accord................................................................................................. 5

· Summary of changes suggested for plant pests................................................... 5

· Key Questions:...................................................................................................... 5

·             Animal Pests..................................................................................................... 6

·       Possums................................................................................................................ 6

·       Improving the benefits of the Possum Control Area programme by increasing management of mustellids and cats................................................................................................. 6

· Key questions:...................................................................................................... 6

·             Focus of Council’s Biosecurity Programme.......................................... 8

·             Possible Additional Work Suggested to Council:............................... 8

·       Pest Pathway Management..................................................................................... 8

· Key Questions....................................................................................................... 8

·       Improved Surveillance........................................................................................... 8

· Key Questions....................................................................................................... 9

·       Rabbits.................................................................................................................. 9

· Key Questions:...................................................................................................... 9

·       Rooks.................................................................................................................... 9

· Key Questions:.................................................................................................... 10

·       Goats................................................................................................................... 10

· Key Questions..................................................................................................... 10

·       Argentine Ants..................................................................................................... 10

·       Effective Long Term Management Options is to:................................................... 11

· Key Questions..................................................................................................... 11

 


Draft RPMS Discussion Document

Attachment 1

 

Purpose

 

The purpose of this discussion document is to seek initial comment from landowners and other people in Hawke’s Bay on the best way to continue to manage and control a range of plant and animal pests.  This will assist the Council as it completes its review of the existing Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS).  This is a preliminary informal discussion to gain initial feedback on what is going well, and what improvements could be made, to enable Council to deliver an efficient and effective biosecurity service for the benefit of the Hawke's Bay region.

In December 2006 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopted the existing RPMS, which sets out a range of plant and animal pest species, and what Councils role is in controlling or managing them. 

 

The implementation of the existing Pest Management Strategy has generally been successful.  Success is particularly notable in the regions possum control area (PCA) programme. Initial control on all rateable land within the region is programmed to be completed in 2012/2013 3-4 years ahead of 2016, which was Council’s target after the project was commenced in 2001.

Over the past five years new pest species such as argentine ants have been responded to. The RPMS review is the appropriate time to consider if management of additional pests should be more formally recognised and committed to.

This discussion document sets out those issues and seeks your comment so that when Council undertakes its formal RPMS review process the views of affected landowners can be taken into account.

After consideration of comments on this discussion document Council will formally review its existing Strategy and publish a new proposed strategy for public consultation in accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993. 


The Process

The process of reviewing the existing Pest Management Strategy needs to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993.  You have two opportunities to provide comment to Council on how you think it is best to manage and control pests in Hawke’s Bay:

·        Now by providing comment on the issues raised in this discussion document.  Comment must be provided to the Council by 8 April 2011; and

·        In August / September 2011 by making a formal submission on the Proposed Revised Pest Management Strategy.  (Note the deadline for formal submissions will be published in the Proposed Revised Pest Management Strategy).

The expected timeline for reviewing the Pest Management Strategy and the steps that will be taken are set out below.

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May

2011

August 2011

August 2011

September 2011

November 2011

December 2011

9 February AM & B

Committee

Considers final draft of discussion document

Regional Pest Management Strategy  discussion document out for public comment

Public comment period for discussion document closes

11 May

AM & B

Committee

Considers submissions on discussion document

11 August

AM & B

Committee

Considers proposed reviewed RPMS for public submission

RPMS publically notified for submissions

Public submissions close

9 Nov

AM&B Committee

Considers

Completed revised RPMS

Revised Strategy adopted by Council

     Proposed RPMS Review Timeline

Background

The existing Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) came into effect in December 2006.  The Biosecurity Act 1993 requires the Council to review its RPMS at least once every five years, therefore, the Council must undertake a review and publish that review for public comment before December 2011.

RPMS Highlights

Under the existing RPMS the Council and landowners are successfully managing or controlling most of the pests targeted in the Strategy.  Key achievements are:

·        There are approximately 440,000 hectares of rateable land in Hawke’s Bay now operating as Possum Control Areas (PCA).  Monitoring results over this land show possum numbers to be generally well below the 5% trap catch objective.  (Trap catch is the measure used for possum densities with 1% equalling 1 possum caught per 100 trap nights under a specific protocol). PCA initial control is likely to be completed in 2012/2013 3-4 years ahead of schedule. The total area now under control is shown on the attached map.

·        Council’s ground and aerial rook control programme is well advanced towards achieving the goal of eradicating rooks north of State Highway 5, and reducing and maintaining numbers below 7,000 birds south of State Highway 5. The number of active nests treated each year is declining.

·        Rabbit monitoring results show that while rabbit population spikes are occurring, and small-localised areas may sometimes be above 4 on the Mclean scale, rabbit populations are still not at pre RHD levels. There are however now generally high immunity levels to the RHD virus in rabbit populations and these are likely to further increase over time.

·        Landowners have continued to manage the plant pests on their land.  Council has assisted landowners with some Total Control plant pests, particularly where the level of infestation of these plants is low, or where a contractor is the most efficient and effective service delivery option.

These issues are discussed in detail in this document, and Council is keen to get your comment on them.

A Guide to Providing Comment

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council invites comment on the issues raised in this discussion document from any person.  Comment can be posted, faxed, emailed, or delivered to the Council.  Contact details are:

 

Postal address:

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

Private Bay 6006

NAPIER 4140

Attn: Campbell Leckie

Physical address: 159 Dalton St, Napier.

Fax: (06)-835-3601 Attn: Campbell Leckie

E-mail: pests@hbrc.govt.nz

comment should be provided by Friday 15 April 2011

 

When providing comment please provide your full name and address. You may provide comment on any of the matters covered in this discussion document, and any other biosecurity issue.

Council would like to know whether you agree or disagree with the suggested changes and options covered in this discussion document.

If you think that changes should be made to the way pests are managed in Hawke’s Bay, it would greatly assist the Council if you could provide specific comments on what changes you believe should be made.

After receiving all the comment, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will consider comments received and take account of the comments when it reviews the RPMS.  As required by the Biosecurity Act, the Council will then publish a Proposed Reviewed Pest Management Strategy and seek formal public submission on it.

A timeline for the review process is included, under the Process section near the beginning of this discussion document.


Plant Pests

 

The RPMS only includes plants for which the benefit of control outweigh costs, and for which Council coordinated collective intervention can be justified. The existing Pest Management Strategy has three categories of plant pests being:

Total Control

(Service Delivery)

Total Control

(Occupier Responsibility)

Boundary Control Plant pests

African feather grass

Apple of Sodom

 

Goats rue

Australian sedge

 

Nassella tussock

Chilean needle grass

 

Phragmites

Cotton thistle

 

Spiny emex

Japanese honeysuckle

 

White edged nightshade

Pinus contorta

 

Yellow water lily

Old man’s beard

 

 

Privet

 

 

Saffron thistle

 

 

Woolly nightshade

 

 

Council is considering the following changes:

Privet

Both Chinese and tree privet cause respiratory illness in some people during their spring /summer flowering period.

Council had been managing privet for a number of years as a total control occupier responsibility plant pest. However a review in 2009 found that this was a very inefficient way to control privet. Council staff often visited occupiers 4-5 times on one site to get privet removal. In addition auditing by council staff found that where occupiers were removing privet, at least 50% of removals did not effectively treat the privet, and it would simply regrow.

For the last two years staff have been trialling the removal of privet using a council approved contractor. This has proven to be very successful. The removals are taking place at a much lower cost allowing more work to be done. In addition the use of a professional contractor has ensured effective control is achieved.

Council is proposing to amend the strategy to confirm privet as a Total Control (service delivery) plant pest in line with the successful trial of the last two years.

Purple ragwort

Purple ragwort (senecio glastifolius) is an aggressive invader that can become the dominant cover, displacing more desirable plants. It is an upright perennial plant that grows up to 1.5m tall and has purple, mauve or pink flowers.

It is predominant around Te Mata park and the surrounding area. Left uncontrolled in time it is likely that this plant pest will come to dominate grassland areas in and around Te Mata park. This will have a visual impact on the park at time of flowering, and will compete with some of the other flora and biodiversity in the park. Some control of purple ragwort is carried out by the Te Mata park Trust Board but there is not a coordinated programme for the plant pest. The long term potential adverse effects of purple ragwort mean it is very likely to meet the Biosecurity Act tests for inclusion in the RPMS.

Given the iconic regional nature of Te Mata park a decision needs to be made whether the purple ragwort should be controlled in a more coordinated way while it is still at a relatively low distribution.

The options are:

(1)           Continue with ad hoc control programmes with the likely result that over time purple ragwort will slowly increase over the park

(2)            Make purple ragwort an occupier responsibility total control plant pest within the area defined in the following map. Occupiers will be responsible for their own control and may access a subsidy for control if they use a contractor for control of purple ragwort within the total control zone. Over time this is likely to see a reduction in purple ragwort in and around Te Mata park.

Council believes that these suggested changes better reflect the present situation.

Plant Pest Accord

In addition to the plant pests listed in the Pest Management Strategy Council will continue to monitor and assist in controlling those plants listed on the Pest Plant Accord (see http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/plants/accord.htmases/plants/accord.htm for more information on the Pest Plant Accord) and those that have been declared as unwanted organisms by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.  (The list of unwanted organisms can be found at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/commercial-imports/unwanted-organisms-register.

The Biosecurity Act also provides powers to the Council to undertake small-scale control work if the presence of harmful plants is observed.

Summary of changes suggested for plant pests

Council is suggesting that:

(1)               The plant pest privet becomes a service delivery plant pest with control undertaken by a council approved contractor.

(2)               The plant pest purple ragwort is included in the RPMS as a new plant pest. It would be included as a Total Control (Occupier responsibility) plant pest specifically for the Te Mata Park and the surrounding areas.

Key Questions:

(1)              Do you agree / disagree with the proposed changes?

(2)               What additional changes do you think should be made? If the change you are proposing is likely to increase the cost of delivering Councils plant pest programme, should that cost be met by removing other plants from the RPMS or by additional funding ?


Animal Pests

Possums

There are two possum control programmes operating in Hawke’s Bay at present. These are:

(1).              Possum Control Areas, where the Regional Council undertakes initial possum control and the landowners are then responsible for the maintenance of low possum numbers on their land.  This work is undertaken in compliance with the existing Pest Management Strategy. Approximately 60,000 hectares of rateable land still requires initial possum control. It is likely that this will be completed in 2012/2013.

(2)               Animal Health Board bovine Tb vector control operations as part of the National Pest Management Strategy for Bovine Tb undertaken by contractors with the aim of eradicating Bovine tuberculosis (Tb). Council currently manages the programme in Hawkes Bay with the areas to be treated determined by AHB on the basis of risk of bovine TB in domestic herds.

There is now approximately 440,000 hectares of land within Possum Control Areas. Landowners in Possum Control Areas have been very successful at controlling possums.  Monitoring has shown that landowners are managing, by working together, to keep possum densities over their land below a 5% trap catch.

The existing Possum Control Area model is working well in Hawke’s Bay, with a high degree of land occupier support.  The benefits of maintaining low possums numbers are seen as being:

·        An increase in pasture production, and therefore stock carrying capacity, equating to an economic benefit of around $2/ha per annum;

·        A significant improvement in the growth of winter fodder crops;

·        Biodiversity benefits (seen in extra growth and flowering of trees and increases in native bird populations);

·        A reduction in damage to soil erosion control and amenity plantings;

·        A reduction in damage to forestry plantings.

·        A lower risk of Bovine Tb spreading;

Improving the benefits of the Possum Control Area programme by increasing management of mustellids and cats

The combined possum control area and Animal Health Board programmes will effectively be over 900,000ha within the next two years. This is a very large area that is being successfully managed for possum pests with a very strong level of community support. Combined with new toxins and traps there is also the potential to grow pest control benefits through the control of additional pests such as mustellids (stoats, ferrets, weasels) and feral cats.

Currently an integrated wide scale predator control trial is being undertaken in the Tutira catchment in conjunction with Department of Conservation and Landcare Research. Councils objectives for this trial are to establish if wide scale predator (particularly mustellids and cat) control can be cost effectively achieved and sustained. In addition if it can be achieved to understand what biodiversity or other community outcomes it contributes to.

Key questions:

(1)               Do you believe council should look to increase the area under active management for predators? Please explain your reasons why/why not.

 

Land covered by possum control areas and the Animal Health Board programme is shown on the following map.

Figure 1: Possum control operations in Hawke's Bay

 


Focus of Council’s Biosecurity Programme

 

The biosecurity programme seeks to protect the Region’s economy and environment through control of plant and animal pests.

While there are many plant and animal pests that have the potential to adversely impact the Region’s economy and environment, the Strategy focuses on those where Council intervention can make a significant difference at an affordable cost. In many cases the cost is borne by the land occupier on whose property the pest resides. The Strategy takes into account affordability to individual land occupiers for management and for control.

Pest management is funded from:

·    A targeted rate on each property over 4ha

·    general funding (general rates and investments)

Council aims to implement the Strategy objectives as efficiently as possible within the budget.

Key questions:

(1)  What do you think Council should be doing for the management or control of pests in addition to the current programme of work,

(2) What do you think Council should not be doing

Possible Additional Work Suggested to Council:

Pest Pathway Management

Council has traditionally had a focus on the control of pest species. However there are a range of potential new and existing pests where the most effective management measure may be through reducing their spread by managing the pest pathways that they spread through. An example of this is the movement of pot plant or nursery material which is a key way that argentine ants spread.

A more proactive involvement in pest pathway management within the Region might slow the spread of certain pests, and could potentially reduce the risk of spread from some pests during a new to New Zealand pest incursion. However intervention by Council to achieve meaningful control may be difficult and expensive.

Key Questions

(1)     Do you believe Council should consider becoming involved in pest pathway management within the region? Please explain your reasons why/why not.

(2)        If you believe Council should become involved in this area how could it be done cost effectively?

Improved Surveillance

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand is the agency responsible for incursion surveillance for potential new to New Zealand pests. However in some instances it may be of value to have surveillance in combination with regional industry for pests that could have significant impacts on Hawke’s Bay, but may not be the subject of a national surveillance programme.

 

Key Questions

(1)        Do you believe Council should consider becoming involved in incursion surveillance? Please explain your reasons why/why not and who should pay.

Rabbits

Council and its predecessors have a long history of controlling rabbits in Hawke’s Bay.  However, with the spread of Rabbit Haemoraghic disease (RHD) through Hawke’s Bay in the 1990’s rabbit numbers fell dramatically and have remained below pre RHD levels since.  The current Pest Management Strategy took advantage of the effectiveness of RHD, and Council changed its activities from controlling rabbits to monitoring rabbit populations.  Control action is only required if rabbit numbers exceeded a certain threshold (being 4 on the Mclean Scale).  Control is the responsibility of the landowner but Council will provide advice and subsidise certain control work.  Subsidy is only provided to landowners where they agree to undertake any ongoing rabbit management programme approved by Council.

Rabbit monitoring over the last five years indicates that rabbit population spikes are occurring and small-localised areas are above 4 on the Mclean Scale from time to time.

Staff currently take a pragmatic interpretation on the management of rabbits through the RPMS. Where rabbit numbers are high on an individual property, but are not impacting on neighbours or having soil conservation or biodiversity impacts on site, then the land user triggers control based on their willingness to pay 50% of control costs.

Key Questions:

(1)     Do you agree with the current approach to rabbit management within the region?

(2)     What additional suggestions would you make to manage rabbits within the region?

Rooks

The existing objective for managing rooks is:

         From North of the ‘rook clear line’ destroy all known rookeries by 30 June 2006.

         From South of the ‘rook clear line’ reduce rook numbers to 7,000 birds by 31 December 2004 and maintain rooks, such that numbers do not exceed that amount in the future.

The “rook clear line” in the existing Pest Management Strategy is State Highway 5.

Over the last five years, Council has undertaken a combined ground and aerial rook control program designed to achieve the objective of eradicating rooks north of SH5 and reducing and maintaining numbers below 7,000 birds south of SH5. 

As well has controlling known rookeries Council continues to monitor for new rookeries.  The ongoing control programme has meant that 20 of the 54 known rookeries within the eradication zone are no longer active and bird numbers are substantially lower across those rookeries that remain.  However, Council staff believe that it will take at least another five to six years of control work before they will be confident that the last remaining rookeries north of State Highway 5 have been eradicated. Council is therefore suggesting that this objective be extended to 2017.

Control work will also continue south of State highway 5 to continue reducing the number of rooks in that area.

 

Key Questions:

(1)     What additional work should Council be doing to ensure rook numbers continue to reduce in Hawke’s Bay?

Goats

Within the Hawke’s Bay region goats are an economic resource and a farm management tool. They are also a significant threat to conservation or biodiversity values, particularly in sites where conservation values are high. The successful management of goats within the region requires the careful balancing of these two priorities.

Over the last two years the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has led a stakeholder forum with the objective of gaining more effective long term management of goats in the region.

This forum has shown that more effective long term management of goats is achievable, but is likely to require more coordinated management of the risks goats create to biodiversity values at certain sites.

Key Questions

 (1)      Do you believe that Council should resource more effective coordinated management of goats in conjunction with other stakeholders, and if so how should that be achieved?

(2)        What else do you believe Council could do to gain more effective long term management of goats within the region, and who should pay for this work?

Argentine Ants

The Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) is recognised worldwide as an invasive ant species. It is native to Argentina and Brazil but is now present in a number of regions of New Zealand including Hawke’s Bay.

Argentine ant infestations are frequently not detected until they have reached the stage of becoming a human nuisance. By the time they have reached this level of infestation they are well established, impacting on the outdoor lifestyle that we are accustomed to here in Hawke’s Bay.

Left unchecked Argentine ants are able to reach very high densities as all Argentine ant colonies are genetically related. With a lack of in-fighting between colonies the species is able to form super colonies. Therefore this ant species can have a significant impact on lifestyle, horticulture and the environment.

They can also become a serious indoor pest as they often form trails into houses (especially kitchens) to get the food they require. They are very good at getting into screw top jars, microwaves and fridges.

The ability to “hitch” a lift with humans makes the Argentine ant a challenge to control, especially when Argentine ants produce around ten times more queens than other species.

Nests found on private land are the landowner’s responsibility. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council does not carry to any ant control operations. However Council does provide contact details for contractors who are able to control the ants professionally and effectively.

Over the last two years Council has been assessing the extent of the Argentine ant population in the Region to assist the community in making the most appropriate long term management response.

Activities Council has been involved in are:

·        Monitoring to establish the extent of the Argentine ant population in the Region

·        Working with local pest contractors to ensure best practise control is undertaken

·     Working with communities who have Argentine ants to ensure they understand best practise control and to facilitate communities forming Argentine ant community control groups

·     Engaging recognised New Zealand Argentine ant specialists to help develop long term management strategies

·     Reviewing other regions who have Argentine ant control programmes to understand what has been successful and what lessons have been learned in those regions for Argentine ant management.

·     Undertaking research both at a coordinated national level into more effective control tools and at a regional level into how the community perceives Argentine ants and the risks they pose.

·     Working with other agencies such as Port of Napier, Napier City Council and Hastings District Council to assist agencies to coordinate control on their land in support of community baiting initiatives.

There are currently over 2500 properties in Hawke’s Bay across more than a dozen sites where Argentine ants have been identified. Experts engaged to review the Hawke’s bay Argentine ant management options and the experience of other regions agree eradication is not an option.

Effective Long Term Management Options is to:

Focus on the current programme of monitoring, best practise control education, facilitating community control groups where there is sufficient interest in the community, and supporting national research into more effective control tools.

Key Questions

(1)     Do you believe Council should support longer term management of Argentine ants within the Region?

(2)        What other initiatives do you believe Council could undertake to achieve effective management of Argentine ants?

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee  

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: Multi-Value Assessment of Napier Urban Waterways:  Prioritisation for Enhancement        

 

REASON FOR REPORT:

1.      This report is to inform the Asset Management Biosecurity Committee on a recently completed report on multi-value assessment of the Napier urban waterways. This work was part of the HPFCS Drainage projects in 2009/10 (Project 290 and 291). The report is entitled “Multi-Value Assessment of Napier Urban Waterways: Prioritisation for Enhancement, February 2011”.

Background

2.      The project is about determining a methodology for assessing, valuing and ranking the Napier urban streams according to their current and potential ecological, recreational, health and safety, cultural, landscape and drainage values. The methodology is applicable to locations other than just Napier. 

3.      This committee has previously been given a presentation on the Stream Ecological Valuation method (SEV) developed for aquatic ecology. Because of the success of the SEV methodology and the wide acceptance of its use, a similar procedure has been developed for the other stream values.

4.      Council has adopted a multi-value approach for managing the waterways in scheme areas. However it is quite difficult and complex to assess and rank these values without some form of measurement methodology. One method is to attribute dollar values to such values. For example, benefit / cost analyses for roading projects may include the dollar cost of a life, injury, travel time etc. and these costs form part of the evaluation process. The Multi-Value Assessment method (MVA) assesses and ranks the values using a scoring system based on assessment criteria, and economic decisions on how and where to proceed then follow. 

5.      In effect, once the assessment has been carried out the streams have a benchmark reflecting their current values. When any enhancement work is proposed its relative value can be assessed and decisions can be made to carry out, or not, as appropriate. Later this work can be reassessed and a measure of the improvements gained. This can then provide a meaningful measure of the Level of Service (LOS) achieved through enhancement.

Methodology

6.      MWH New Zealand Ltd prepared the report (Adam Forbes and Dave Compton-Moen) using their expertise in the areas of ecology, landscape, recreation and health and safety. HBRC provided expertise in drainage and culture. The cultural assessment was guided by Jenny Mauger based in part on the Cultural Health Index work; approval and field work was carried out by (Heitia Hiha and Arapera Riki for Mana Ahuriri Inc.).   

7.      As well as the chosen experts in their fields applying the methodology, a small number of consultation interviews were held with members of the public that use the network. This information was used to gauge the public perception and use of the network and assist with the values assessments and weighting.

8.      On completion of the field data collection and assessment a workshop was held between the experts and others chosen for their abilities to provide an audit and advice role. This workshop reviewed the data, the values and assessment criteria. A review was also carried out on the enhancement actions, the ranking of reaches and the MVA assessment tool. Now that the tool has been developed, a workshop would not be a necessary part of any future MVA assessment for other streams.

9.      Each stream was divided into reaches based around the reaches used in the SEV study, for ease of reference. In total five Napier streams were evaluated. These were:

9.1.      Old Tutaekuri Riverbed (OTR) (3 reaches)

9.2.      Taipo (5 reaches)

9.3.      Purimu (3 reaches)

9.4.      County (4 reaches)

9.5.      Plantation (3 reaches)

Results

10.    The field assessments of current condition and enhancement gains are scored on a scale of 1 to 20. The results are normalised to a scale of 0 to 1 with 1 being the highest (or best) score. The current condition scores ranged from 0.32 to 0.51. The enhancement gain scores ranged from 0.2 to 0.31 and not in the same order as the current condition scores.

1.          

11.    Although all the stream values are assessed on an equal basis, there is a need to weight the values to ensure that the primary functions are not overwhelmed by the secondary functions. For these streams Drainage is the primary function, there is no getting away from that fact. Ecology and Culture are weighted equally just behind Drainage; with Landscape, Recreation and Health and Safety following in order. The pie graph below shows the breakdown of these weightings.

2.          

3.               These weightings were assessed by the panel of experts as being appropriate for the Napier streams in the survey. The methodology scoring spreadsheet can accommodate any combination of weighting to suit a particular stream’s primary purpose.

12.    To demonstrate the value of the MVA it is interesting to look in detail at each site. For example the highest current condition score was site OTR3 (which is the waterway alongside Georges Drive). The interesting thing about the score is that it scored highest for recreation and landscape and high for health and safety. On the other hand the ecology and cultural values were low.

13.    Another example is the OTR2 reach (middle reaches of the OTR) which scored notably lower than its adjoining upper and lower reaches due to its lower health and safety, recreational and landscape values yet it had high ecology and drainage values.

Enhancement Gains

14.    All three Plantation waterway reaches featured in the six largest gain scores with PLA3 showing the greatest potential of all 18 reaches. PLA3 is the reach that is in this year’s annual plan for enhancement. (Work is due to begin at the beginning of March 2011). The figure below shows the enhancement gains for the reaches examined.

15.    Of the five highest scoring (enhancement) reaches, terrestrial ecology and cultural values stand out as consistently contributing most to enhancement gain scores. These reaches are shown circled in the figure below.

Discussion

16.    The Multi Value Assessment (MVA) method highlights both Higher Value Reaches that should be protected and Lower Value Reaches that have good enhancement potential. This is an important distinction as the approach to achieving good outcomes will be different.

17.    The report identifies and recommends sites that should be the focus of ‘protection’ management options. For example:

18.    The current Lower Value Reaches with good enhancement potential have all been prioritised as per the table below.

19.    The Multi-Value analysis provides the information for each of the priority groups about which particular value is downgraded and will benefit the most from appropriate enhancement works. It is interesting to note that the value areas of Culture (all criteria), Landscape (naturalness of waterway), Ecology (wildlife corridors), and Recreation (public access to the water) are all strong themes for enhancement. 

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

20.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend that Council receives the report. 

 

 

 

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee  

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme - Rivers: Review Levels of Service      

 

REASON FOR REPORT:

1.      Council manages and administers the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme to maintain an effective flood control network that provides protection from frequent river flooding to communities and productive land on the Heretaunga Plains.

2.      Flood protection is provided through river control works, stopbanking, and a network of drainage waterways and pumping stations.

3.      Council has committed, through the 2009-2019 LTP, to review the current levels of service provided by the Heretaunga Plains Scheme, to determine whether they are still appropriate or should be increased. 

4.      Council approved the project plan to guide the level of service review in May 2010.  The review is scheduled for completion in 2011.

5.      The purpose of this paper is to inform the Committee of progress made to-date in reviewing the levels of service for the Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers.

Background

6.      The attached progress report sets out:

6.1.      A brief overview of the key factors driving the level of service review;

6.2.      A summary of the steps and timeframes required to complete the review; and,

6.3.      The findings of two key studies undertaken to support the review (economic analysis and regulatory planning assessment).

Investigations

7.      An economic analysis was carried out by Sean Bevin of Economic Solutions Ltd in Napier, in August 2010.  The study analysed:

7.1.      The current profile and level of demographic, economic and investment activity in the Heretaunga Plains area protected by the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme;

7.2.      The main economic changes that have occurred in the area over the past 20 years;

7.3.      The main economic trends and changes forecast for the area over the longer-term;

7.4.      The local and regional economic impacts of a significant failure(s) of the present flood control scheme;

7.5.      The implications of the above analysis for the future level of flood protection provided by the Scheme; and,

7.6.      The appropriateness of the current benefit allocation approach used by HBRC for funding the costs of operating and maintaining the Scheme.

8.      A regulatory planning assessment was completed by Gavin Ide, HBRC Team Leader Policy, in December 2010.  The assessment supported two investigation outcomes;

8.1.      A review of current and proposed planning provisions with respect to the level of protection provided to flood control assets in the Scheme, and any changes in land use intensification/use that they promote; and,

8.2.      Identification of opportunities to restrict development in strategic areas adjoining flood protection assets in order to manage for super design flood events; and, where suitable areas of land for protection are identified, the processes available to ensure that these areas are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

9.      These assessments, along with the hydrodynamic modelling currently underway, will inform development and consideration of a range of options for improving the Scheme levels of service.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.      That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommends that Council receives the report.

 

 

 

Larissa Coubrough

Asset Engineer

 

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Project Update

 

 

2View

Map Roys Hill Scenario

 

 

3View

Map Taradale Scenario

 

 

4View

Map Moteo Scenario

 

 

  


Project Update

Attachment 1

 

HERETAUNGA PLAINS FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME – RIVERS LEVEL OF SERVICE REVIEW

PROJECT UPDATE

 

February 2011

 

1.0      PURPOSE

 

This report provides a summary of progress made to-date with respect to the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme (HPFCS) - Rivers Level of Service (LOS) Review.  The findings of two key studies undertaken to support the review; the Economic Analysis and the Regulatory Planning Assessment, are detailed.

 

Section 4.0 sets out next steps in terms of advancing the project to completion.

 

2.0      BACKGROUND

Council committed, through the 2009-2019 LTP, to “review the current flood control levels of service provided by the Scheme to determine whether they are still appropriate or should be increased.” The LTP Performance Targets provide for project completion by 2012.

 

The review is being driven by a number of factors, including:

·    Community feedback associated with a public survey undertaken in 2008, which identified ‘flooding hazard’ to be in the top three most important threats in Hawke’s Bay.  The survey also found that the community would like greater resources allocated to address this;

 

·    The Council’s decision in 2007 to adopt a new multi-value approach to waterway management.  This new approach seeks to protect and enhance the cultural, heritage, landscape, drainage, recreation, and ecological values of Council owned and administered watercourses;

 

·    Land use and regulatory change.  The most recent upgrade of the flood control scheme was undertaken more than 20 years ago when land use on the Plains was less intensive and land values much lower than they are today.  These factors, in conjunction with the recent completion of the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS), suggest the need to re-evaluate the level of protection that is and should be provided so that the levels of service better align with the needs of current and future generations; and,

 

·    Anticipated projections of climate change in Hawke’s Bay, which suggests lower total rainfall but more frequent, more intense, rain events in future. Seasonal changes are also anticipated with lower rainfall in winter and spring and greater rainfall in summer and autumn.  Greater intensity events are likely to result in an increased frequency of flooding.  Climate change predictions need to be carefully considered in order to determine whether a greater level of protection is required to protect against changing weather patterns.

 

Council’s Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee approved a project brief to guide the LOS review at their meeting in May 2010.  The project restricts consideration to the major rivers and their associated flood control works; it was agreed that drainage would be considered separately due to the differing nature of issues associated with the HPFCS drainage network.  A project brief for this secondary assessment will be developed shortly.

 

The LOS review closely aligns with a number of other projects also currently underway, including; the HPFCS Asset Management Plan review; the Environmental Code of Practice review; the gravel management review; and, development of the Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri Ecological Management and Enhancement Plans.  Consideration will be given to the implications that the LOS review may have on these other policies and processes currently under development. 

 

Key components of the project and their agreed timeframes for completion are as follows:

 

1.    Review established levels of service

June-July 2010

2.    Complete economic analysis

August 2010

3.    Review existing/proposed regulatory planning instruments

November 2010

4.    Model flood scenarios (incl. climate change) and develop options

March 2011

5.    Discuss options with TLAs in terms of the strategic planning process

March 2011

6.    Complete cost/benefit analysis

April 2011

7.    Circulate options paper to AMB Committee

May 2011

8.    Seek public feedback on options

May-June 2011

9.    Circulate summary report to AMB Committee

August 2011

10.  Implement agreed changes

August 2011

   

 

3.0      PROGRESS AND STUDY FINDINGS

 

The LOS review is progressing as scheduled with the hydrodynamic modelling and option development currently underway.  The economic analysis and regulatory planning assessment were completed in 2010 and will also inform the development and consideration of options.  The following sections summarise the outcomes of the two key studies completed to-date:

 

3.1.1   Economic Analysis

 

Sean Bevin, an Economic Analyst at Economic Solutions Ltd, Napier, was commissioned in August 2010 to complete an economic analysis of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme.  The analysis required assessment of:

·    The current profile and level of demographic, economic and investment activity in the Heretaunga Plains area protected by the HPFCS;

·    The main economic changes that have occurred within the area over the past 20 years;

·    The main economic trends and changes forecast for the area over the longer-term;

·    The local and regional economic impacts of a significant failure(s) of the present flood control scheme;

·    The implications of the above analysis for the future level of flood protection provided by the HPFCS; and,

·    The appropriateness of the current benefit allocation approach used by HBRC for funding the costs of operating and maintaining the HPFCS.

 

Information to complete the analysis was sourced from Statistics NZ, Food and Crop Research, NZ Institute of Economic Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Hastings Office), and Dr Warren Hughes, Honorary Fellow at the University of Waikato’s Department of Economics.  Council’s rating information and flood hazard maps were used to identify directly and indirectly affected properties within the Scheme area.

 

The study concluded that:

 

·    There has been a significant increase since 1991, in the demographic base of the HPFCS catchment, with the total population increasing by 12% and household numbers by 20%.

 

The current resident population of the total catchment area for the HPFCS is approximately 127,000; representing approximately 96% of the combined population of the Napier/Hastings districts and 82% of the total Hawke’s Bay region population.   Approximately 55,000 people live within the directly floodable or impacted area of the catchment and 72,000 live within the indirectly affected area.

 

·    Over the past decade, the catchment economy has grown by approximately one-third, accompanied by a significant degree of production diversification and change.

 

The total number of businesses operating in 2009 in the HPFCS catchment stood at approximately 13,700, representing over 90% of the combined Napier-Hastings district’s total and 74% of the Hawke’s Bay regional total. Primary production and related processing accounts for 18.4% of all business in the area, with pastoral farming and fruit growing leading the sector.  Manufacturing activity accounts for 3.4% of total businesses and the services sector 78.2%.

 

·    The HPFCS catchment is the ‘engine room’ of the Hawke’s Bay economy, comprising the majority part of the Hawke’s Bay primary production/processing and related servicing base.  The Heretaunga Plains is an important contributor to the national fruit and horticultural sector.

 

Total annual sales from the primary production, processing, manufacturing, and service sector enterprises located in the HPFCS area are currently estimated at $15.5 billion (83% of the regional total).  The primary production sector accounts for 19% of total catchment area sales; processing/manufacturing 20%; and the broad services sector the balance of 61%.

 

Primary production activities in the catchment accounts for 70% of total sales for the sector at the regional level, with the processing/manufacturing sector accounting for 75% of regional sales for this sector, and the services sector accounting for 91% of regional sales for this sector.  The directly impacted area for the HPFCS accounts for 57% of the total catchment area industry sales and the indirectly impacted catchment 43%.

 

The leading fruit and horticultural growing industries in the catchment area include; pip-fruit (4,524ha and 24.5% of total production area), wine grapes (4,709ha and 25.7%), and outdoor vegetables (7,513ha and 41.0%).  Together they account for in excess of 90% of the total production area.

 

·    The area of the total HPFCS catchment that would be directly impacted by a major flood event is a key and growing part of the total catchment economy.

 

On the basis of the current annual GDP estimate for the Hawke’s Bay region, total catchment area industry sales, and the catchment’s share of total regional employment, GDP for the total catchment is currently estimated at $5.2 billion.

 

In 2009, total employment in the HPFCS area stood at 65,024, comprising 54% in the direct catchment and 46% in the indirect catchment.  The total for both catchments represents 97% of overall employment in the combined Napier/Hastings districts and 85% of total Hawke’s Bay-wide employment.  Within the total catchment, the primary production sector accounts for 15% of all industry employment, processing/manufacturing 12%, and services 73%.

 

Regional rating information indicates a total current underlying land valuation in the area of $10.1 billion, comprising 71% in the directly floodable part of the catchment and the residual 29% in the indirectly impacted part.  The residential sector component of the total valuation is estimated at $6.1 billion (60%).  The total catchment capital valuation is approximately $20.5 billion, with 85% comprising the directly floodable area and the balance of 15% comprising the indirectly impacted area. 

 

·    Further significant demographic, economic, rural production and other industry growth is forecast for the catchment area over the longer-term.  Demographic growth is also forecast to be higher in the directly floodable part of the catchment.

 

Using the HPUDS projections as a base, the resident population of the HPFCS total catchment area is projected to increase from the current estimate of 127,000 to 139,000 by Year 2045; equating to a gain of 12,000 or 9.4%.  The population of the directly floodable part of the catchment is projected to increase by 18% and the population of the indirectly impacted part by around 3%.  In 2045, the directly affected area will account for approximately 45% of the total catchment population and the indirect area 55%.

 

The number of households in the total HPFCS catchment is projected to increase by approximately 11,390 (22.4%) over the period 2010-2045.  The number of households in the direct catchment is projected to increase by 5,156 (25%) over this period and account for approximately 41% of all households in the total catchment by 2045.  The number of households in the indirectly affected area is projected to increase by 6,233 (21%).

 

Overall, real average annual economic growth of 2% is forecast for the Napier-Hastings area over the period 2010-2045.  The most significant growth over the next decade is forecast for agriculture, health and community services, machinery and equipment manufacturing, business services, forest products processing and manufacturing, Central Government administration, tourism/hospitality services, transport/storage services, communication, construction, and wholesale/retail.  The industry sector is forecast to grow over the 2010-2045 period at an annual rate of approximately 3%. 

 

·    Major flooding within the HPFCS catchment has the potential to result in a very significant economic impact loss for the local and regional economies.

 

Economic impact assessments were carried out for three stop bank breach scenarios: a breach at Roys Hill; Taradale; and Moteo.  These scenarios were chosen as being representative of a large-scale flooding event, as well as a smaller urban and smaller rural event.  The resulting floodable areas used for the exercise were sourced from Council’s ‘Flood Hazard Study’, June 1999 (refer to maps attached) and considered in conjunction with regional economic profile and trend information. 

 

Table 1 presents the total direct and backward linkage economic impact for Hawke’s Bay associated with a stop bank breach at Roys Hill, Taradale, or Moteo. 

 

Table 1: Total Regional Economic Impact Losses

Economic Impact Measure

Total Multiplied Economic Impact Losses

Roys Hill Breach

Taradale Breach

Moteo Breach

Net Household Income ($M)

182.0

135.7

9.9

Total Employment

6,040

4,124

365

GDP

385.5

277.2

21.7

 

Net Household Income refers to the additional income accruing to households in the local economy, net of taxation and various forms of saving.  Total Employment refers to total full and part-time persons engaged in work on an annual basis.  GDP refers to the total value of additional economic activity generated within a particular local economy, after removing the value of imported goods and services.  In this case of production losses, these measures need to be viewed from the opposite point of view.  For example, GDP will refer to the total loss in economic activity in the region following the direct production losses generated by the flooding.

 

The economic impacts in Table 1 include both the direct and indirect/induced multiplier, or flow-on, impacts.  Direct impacts refer to ‘first round’ revenue or spending impacts.  Indirect impacts refer to impacts on supplier or backward linked industries.  Induced impacts refer to the flow-on household consumption spending impacts.

 

Backward linkage impacts refer to the adverse impacts (of the production losses) on those industries supplying various production inputs to the industries directly affected by the flooding.  In the case of the Roys Hill flooding scenario, the total GDP impact indicated comprises a direct impact of $186.8 million and a backward linkage/supplier impact of $198.7 million.

 

The forward linkage economic impact losses within the region refers to the impact of the flooding on forward linked industries such as food processing, wholesaling and retailing, and construction etc. that utilise the outputs from the directly affected industries.  In the Roys Hill case, the total forward linked GDP impact loss in the region is $140.5 million.  The estimated forward linked impact losses for the other two areas are; Taradale $40 million, and Moteo $10 million.

 

Table 2 summarises the direct, backward linked, and forward linked economic impact losses for the three flooding/stop bank breach scenarios.

 

Table 2: Napier-Hastings Major Flood Event Economic Impact Total GDP/Value Added Losses

Economic Impact

Economic Impact Losses ($M)

Roys Hill Breach

Taradale Breach

Moteo Breach

Direct Impact

186.8

138.3

11.2

Backward Linkage Impact

198.7

138.9

10.5

Forward Linkage Impact

140.5

40.0

10.0

Total

526.0

317.2

31.7

 

·    The current public/private benefit allocation ‘formula’ used for funding the operation of the HPFCS remains appropriate and generally consistent with other regional council practice in New Zealand.  It should, therefore, be maintained.

 

The investigation indicated that across the 12 Councils reviewed, the private benefit proportion ranged from 50-100% with two Councils using a range of 50-80%, two using a 70% figure, three 80%, one 85%, one 93-98% (for different schemes) and three using a 100% private benefit approach.  An averaging across all proportions indicates a figure of around 80%.  It is noted that this figure is ‘inflated’ by those Councils managing multiple localised schemes with a resulting higher private/direct benefit element.

 

The common rating approach amongst the Councils reviewed was the use of targeted rating for private benefits and general rating for public benefits.

 

 

3.1.2   Regulatory Planning Assessment

The Regulatory Planning Assessment supported two investigation outcomes:

1.    A review of current and proposed planning provisions with respect to the level of protection  provided to flood control assets, and any changes in land use intensification/use that they promote; and,

 

2.    Identification of opportunities to restrict development in strategic areas adjoining flood protection assets in order to manage for super design flood events; and, where suitable areas of land for protection are identified, the processes available to ensure that these area are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

 

The assessment was carried out by Gavin Ide, HBRC Team Leader Policy, in December 2010.  The investigation concluded that:

 

·    There are three principle planning documents that have relevance to flood control assets and adjoining land use development on the Heretaunga Plains: Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan; Hastings District Plan; and City of Napier District Plan.

 

·    Within the existing district plans, there are some limited opportunities to restrict development that may impinge upon flood control assets; however, these opportunities are not comprehensive and processes are typically ad-hoc (e.g. only available through a subdivision and/or land use consent application process).

 

·    Some tools and provisions could be incorporated into the Napier and Hastings District Plan’s to offer more comprehensive and explicit opportunities to restrict development that impinges upon flood control assets.  These could be introduced through a plan change request process or a scheduled plan review programme. 

 

·    Designations appear to be the most versatile ‘tool’.  They are able to provide for existing and new flood control assets within the designated area and could give HBRC (as the requiring authority) an elevated status as an interested or affected party in any land use proposal within or adjacent to the designation.  They are often depicted on district planning maps; hence they would also offer something of a graphical ‘flag’ to plan users.  However, it is acknowledged that there can also be an attached expectation of compensation for owners of private land designated for essential infrastructure purposes.

 

·    Beyond district plans, there are a range of other tools or interventions that could be implemented to provide for existing and new flood control assets, and to restrict development adjoining any such assets.  Tools range from lightweight provision of information through to stronger proprietary interests in land (e.g. covenants, easements, freehold land ownership etc.).

 

·    No one tool has been identified as always being suitable for every situation and it may be that adoption of more than one tool is required to deliver the best outcome for the HPFCS and community.

 

·    Hastings District Council is commencing its second district plan review, so it is timely that managers of the HPFCS consider the merits of designations as a versatile tool for securing and delivering desired levels of service.  TLA’s preparation of structure plans also provides an opportunity to highlight the demands and requirements of existing and foreseeable flood control assets in and around new Greenfield development areas.

 

·    There may also be an opportunity for HBRC’s own ‘Growth Management’ package of Regional Policy Statement changes to incorporate elements that recognise the importance of flood control assets (e.g. the merits of a technique akin to the ‘regional focus areas’ in Greater Wellington’s 2009 RPS warrants some further investigation).

 

4.0      NEXT STEPS

 

Hydrodynamic modelling is currently underway to confirm the current level of protection provided by the Scheme flood control assets and to determine the effects that climate change will have on existing assets.  Scenarios are being run for 100 and 500 year return events, both with and without climate change predictions factored in, to help determine where additional protection may be required.  This work is due for completion in March 2011 and will inform development of a range of options for improving the levels of service provided to the HPFCS community.

 

A workshop scheduled for March 10th will bring together planning and emergency management professionals from across the region to discuss development of a joint strategy for integrating planning for hazard risks in Hawke’s Bay.  The workshop will provide a useful forum for initiating discussion with TLA planning staff regarding opportunities for enhancing planning provisions to better protect flood protection assets from inappropriate use and development.   It is anticipated that this initial discussion will inform further discussions with individual TLA’s and, perhaps over the longer-term, formal application of proposals to amend current district planning provisions. 

 

A thorough cost/benefit analysis of options will be required prior to seeking public comment on any changes proposed, and this is scheduled to begin in March also.  A public discussion document, setting out the options proposed and specific costs and benefits for Scheme ratepayers, will be drafted in April and circulated to Council’s Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee for approval at their next meeting.

 

Public feedback will be sought throughout June 2011, and summarised for the Committee during their August meeting.  Any agreed changes will then be incorporated into the 2012 LTP review, annual plan, and HPFCS Asset Management Plan.

 


Map Roys Hill Scenario

Attachment 2

 


Map Taradale Scenario

Attachment 3

 


Map Moteo Scenario

Attachment 4

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 09 March 2011

SUBJECT: General Business        

 

INTRODUCTION:

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

6.   

 

 

7.   

 

 

8.   

 

 

9.   

 

 

10. 

 

 

11. 

 

 

12. 

 

 

13. 

 

 

14. 

 

 

15. 

 

 

16.