Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 February 2014

SUBJECT: Central Hawke’s Bay Pathways

Reason for Report

1. In response to a submission on HBRC’s draft 2013/14 annual plan from the Central Hawke’s Bay Pathways Committee, Council agreed to:

1.1. Support the development of pathways in Central Hawke’s Bay by offering to contribute up to $100,000 to their development from the HBRC Community Infrastructure and Open Spaces borrowing Facility; this support being subject to:

1.1.1. the HBRC contribution is no more than 50% of the cost of construction of the pathway for pathways on HBRC owned or administered land

1.1.2. The HBRC contribution is no more than 25% of the cost of construction of the pathway for pathways on other land, provided the land upon which the pathway is constructed is either in public ownership, or is secured for use as a pathway through a legal agreement between the land owner and a public body

1.1.3. HBRC meeting the ongoing cost of maintenance of any pathways on HBRC owned or administered land through an addition general funded provision to be included in the annual plan following the construction of the pathway

1.1.4. The ongoing cost of maintenance of any pathways other than those on HBRC land being met by another public organisation.

2. This paper updates Council on progress towards the development of pathways in Central Hawke’s Bay.

3. HBRC own a forest block in the vicinity of Waipukurau. The Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust, the body established to drive the development of pathways in CHB has asked if they could establish a mountain bike park within this block. This paper seeks agreement from Council for this initiative.

Background

4. The Central Hawke’s Bay Pathways Committee has established itself as a charitable Trust. Staff have held discussions with the Trust (named the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust) and are working with them to complete the first two stages of pathways prior to the 2014/15 summer.

5. At their meeting on 12 December 2013, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council agreed to contribute $150,000 towards the development of pathways in Central Hawke’s Bay. This together with HBRC’s commitment and funding sourced by the Trust enables a significant length of pathway to be developed.

Proposed pathways

6. A number of possible routes have been considered by the Trust. See attached map for approx location/extent of these.

Route 1 - A limestone pathway under the Waipukurau Bridge from the start of Lindsay Road, along the left bank of Tukituki River on the stop bank to Tapairu Road, then up Tapairu Road to Waipawa via the walkway on the Waipawa Bridge. The limestone trail will go to the commencement of the seal on Tapairu Road, walkers and cyclists would then travel up Tapairu Road to the Waipawa Bridge. The length to be constructed is 6 km with a further 3.5 km along Tapairu Road, at an estimated construction cost of $196,000.

Route 2 - A limestone pathway starting at the Waipukurau Holiday Park on the right stop bank of Tukituki River to beyond the Waipukurau sewage ponds linking to Mt Herbert Road and Mangatarata Road. This will require a bridge over the creek running adjacent to the sewerage pond. This route will provide a loop close to Waipukurau running along the river and then back to Waipukurau via Mt Herbert Road. The length to be constructed is 2.5 km at an estimated construction cost of $123,000.

Route 3 - A 2km limestone pathway along the paper road starting on Tapairu Rd going to the confluence of the Tukituki and Waipawa rivers, a formed trail suitable for mountain bikes and walkers along the Waipawa River up to the Waipawa Road bridge. No cost estimates have been developed for this option as details and land ownership issues have yet to be worked through.

Route 4 - A limestone pathway running south on the Waipukurau side stop bank of the Tukituki river from the Waipukurau Bridge to Pukeora Hill. The length to be constructed is 6km at an estimated construction cost of $150,000.

Route 5 - A limestone pathway starting the Waipawa side of the Waipukurau Bridge at the start of Lindsay Road travelling south up onto the stop bank and along to Lindsay Bush. This will give bike and walking access to the Lindsay Native Bush Reserve. The length to be constructed is 3.7 km at an estimated construction cost of $100,000.

Route 6 - The completion of the state highway national cycleway constructed with concrete or limestone running from Ford Road to Waipawa (3.6 km). No cost estimates have been developed for this option as funding responsibility, details and land ownership issues have yet to be worked through. Approx cost estimated to be $650,000 for a concrete surfaced pathway.

7. The Trust wishes to pursue the first two routes using HBRC, CHBDC and its own funding that has been committed/contributed to date. HBRC staff are undertaking design work on these two options, as the pathways are primarily on HBRC stopbanks, and working with the Trust and CHBDC to ensure that the conditions imposed by HBRC regarding cost sharing and maintenance are being met.

8. It is proposed that the relationship between these 3 parties is set out in a Memorandum of Understanding document between the Trust, HBRC and CHBDC. A draft document has been discussed and is being progressed.

Proposed mountain bike park

9. The Trust would also like to establish a mountain bike park/track on or through the HBRC forestry block off Mangatarata Road. This pathway could provide another trail joining onto the loop from and to Waipukurau at the end of Route 2. The Trust has requested permission from HBRC to do this.

10. Staff believe that mountain biking could be undertaken within the block with little or no adverse effect on the forest investment made by HBRC. Council support for this initiative is therefore sought. Staff suggest that the following conditions should be met.

11. The Trust be required to enter into a lease arrangement with HBRC for no cost but with a requirement to meet specific conditions, including:

11.1. That all pathways developed within the block be at the cost of the Trust and that their construction and use do not compromise the purpose or value of the land or the forest. The construction would therefore need to take into account appropriate management of stormwater from the trails.

11.2. That public access be allowed on the pathway network, however the Trust may levy a fee, if it so desires, to cover costs it incurs in managing or maintaining the network.

11.3. The Trust is responsible for the maintenance of the network in a clean and tidy state and for the repair/ reinstatement of any assets that are damaged or destroyed as a result of its public use. This includes fences gates and areas of indigenous planting.

11.4. Responsibility for meeting any conditions imposed by CHBDC and/or HBRC because the park is used as a mountain bike park shall be the responsibility of the Trust. Where any conditions are imposed because of the use of the land for forestry purposes, the Trust shall cooperate with HBRC and shall assist HBRC in meeting those conditions. This may include maintenance of the under storey vegetation on the block to minimise any fire hazard and the meet any requirements or expectations with regard to pest plants and animals.

12. HBRC wishes to be a good neighbour. The Trust will ensure that the use of the land does not compromise this.

13. HBRC may require the Park to be closed or partially closed during forest management or harvesting activities. The Trust shall work with HBRC to ensure safety of park users.

14. HBRC will be responsible for maintaining insurance for the tree crop.

15. Councillor Debbie Hewitt has been involved in discussions between HBRC and the Trust.

Decision Making Process

16. 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:

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

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

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

16.4. The persons affected by this decision the potential users of the pathways and proposed mountain bikepark.

16.5. This is part of an initiative for the development of pathways throughout Hawke’s Bay. Options and issues associated with the pathway network have been considered as the network has developed.

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

16.7. 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.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Receives this report, and

2. Notes that HBRC staff are working with the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust to complete the construction of 2 pathways in Central Hawke’s Bay by the commencement of the 2014/15 summer, and will utilise funds committed by HBRC to fund a portion of the project.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

3. 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.

4. Authorises the use of the forestry block off Mangatarata Road for a mountain bike park/track subject to satisfactory arrangements for that use being agreed between the Trust and the Chief Executive of HBRC.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Central Hawke's Bay Pathways

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 February 2014

SUBJECT: Submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for HB Local Government Reorganisation

Reason for Report

1. At its meeting on 18 December 2013 Council resolved to lodge a submission to the Local Government Commission on its Draft Proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Hawke’s Bay, based upon reinforcing the need for any local government structure within Hawke’s Bay to have a specific focus on the management of natural resources in recognition of the region’s strong linkages to its primary production sector.

2. A submission is being prepared and will be submitted to the Māori Committee on 25 February for their comments and to Council on 26 February for final sign-off. An outline of the submission and key points that will be made is appended to this paper as Attachment 1. Feedback is sought from the Committee to ensure that the key points being made cover off the issues that Council wishes the Local Government Commission to address in its final proposal.

3. Following this feedback the submission will be further crafted so that it is in its virtually final form for Council consideration at the end of February. Submissions close on 7 March 2014.

Decision Making Process

4. 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:

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

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

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

4.4. The persons affected by this decision are all those persons with an interest in the delivery of local government functions in Hawke’s Bay.

4.5. Options previously considered by Council at its Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting 11 December 2013, and resolved at the Regional Council meeting 18 December 2013 included not lodging a submission.

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

4.7. 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. Notwithstanding this, any person may make a submission on the Local Government Commission’s draft reorganisation proposal.

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Considers the key points to be presented in the submission to the Local Government Commission and provides feedback to assist in the finalising of the submission.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends Council:

2. 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.

3. Approves the submission, including any amendments agreed at the Environment and Services Committee meeting, for lodging with the Local Government Commission.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Draft Submission to the Local Government Commission

Draft Submission to the Local Government Commission

Attachment 1

Draft Submission

To: Local Government Commission

Subject: Draft Proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay

Overview

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Local Government Commission’s draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay.

HBRC requests the opportunity to be heard in support of its submission by the Commission.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the only local authority within the area affected by the draft proposal that represents all the communities within that area.

HBRC submitted an Alternative Proposal for local government reorganisation when this was called for by the Local Government Commission in March 2013. While the structure in our alternative proposal by HBRC has not been accepted as a reasonably practicable option our submission expresses concern that the principles outlined in that alternative proposal, which are a fundamental of good local governance, have not been addressed in any sense in the draft proposal.

Consequently HBRC does not support the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its current form.

Rationale

The underlying premise of HBRC’s submission is that form should follow function when it comes to determining local government structure. In HBRC’s view the draft proposal has not given adequate consideration of existing local government functions but rather focuses on what local government might potentially do in a unitary authority (noting that this is without supporting evidence).

Natural resource knowledge and management, providing an integrated approach and specialist expertise to natural resource management is a core function regional councils. This is particularly essential to Hawke’s Bay given the region’s significant natural resource base including large areas of land suitable for intensive agriculture or horticulture and given that the region’s economy is driven by primary production.

The region needs to retain a core focus on ensuring the investment funds deliver intergenerational work in the complex natural resource areas and the investment capital is used for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities. A dedicated focus on assisting the primary sector to build resilience, and if possible to expand, also needs to be retained in any future structure.

While it is accepted that any regional council regulatory functions would need to continue irrespective of structure the arguably more important contribution of the regional council is in undertaking scientific investigations of natural resources, particularly freshwater, and in adding value through the use of investment capital for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities.

Draft Proposal

Key elements of the draft proposal are:

· Amalgamation of current councils into one unitary authority.

· Inclusion of small area of Rangitikei district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council into new council

· Exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council from new council HOWEVER the new Hawke’s Bay council would be responsible for regional council functions in these areas (transferred from Bay of Plenty Regional Council)

· Nine councillors would be elected from five wards. The Mayor would be elected at large

· The council would have five community boards with 37 elected members.

· A standing council committee comprising representatives of local iwi and elected members of council would hear the views of Māori

· Existing council debt and financial arrangements would be ring-fenced for at least six years to the communities which incurred them or benefit from them. Current regional assets would be transferred to Hawke’s Bay Council.

Commentary

Regional Council functions

The regional council is particularly focussed on the issues of environmental management, rural land use and primary production, and how this is linked to the performance of the regional economy. This is built upon a focus on freshwater management and soil/land management. The 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) means that regional councils are and will be busy with a number of significant issues in its implementation, including:

· Reviewing key planning documents in order to "give effect to" the NPS

· Developing freshwater objectives and quality and quantity limits

· Grappling with issues of "efficient allocation", "efficient use" and water permit transfer criteria

· Reviewing discharge permit consent conditions

· Increasing the involvement of iwi and hapū and improving the integrated management of fresh water.

This is leading to considerable policy and plan development by regional councils over the next few years on what are very contentious issues. The work required to underpin the setting of limits is complex, quite sophisticated and is going to take the best part of a decade to work through.

Of concern to HBRC in the establishment of a unitary authority is the focus on territorial authority activities. While this is understandable, and is not a criticism, it does lead to questions around the ongoing financial sustainability of the programmes required to be undertaken over long term periods to validate the policies required to be developed, not just in the area of freshwater management but in the management of other public resources such as air, land and the coast.

In recognition of the responsibilities placed on regional councils to manage the “commons” without the ability to recover costs directly, regional councils were transferred ownership of port companies in the 1989 New Zealand-wide local government reorganisation. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council relies on the dividend paid to it annually by the Port of Napier Ltd to allow it to undertake scientific investigations, environmental monitoring and land management activities that would otherwise have to be funded directly by the ratepayer. HBRC’s concern is that the funding of such activities is vulnerable to the more immediate needs often associated with urban based council activities.

We request that the dividend paid by the Port of Napier Ltd be “ring-fenced” for regional council environmental management functions in the final proposal.

A stand-alone regional council

The Draft Proposal dismisses the concept of one Hawke’s Bay District Council and one Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on the basis that it would be seen as creating confusion in the public mind as to who had political mandate to speak for Hawke’s Bay. No other considerations that are required to be assessed by the LGC are presented e.g. whether or not this option facilitates efficiencies and cost savings; productivity improvements and simplified planning processes. More importantly whether or not the proposed authority will enable catchment-based flooding and water management issues to be dealt with effectively by the unitary authority.

Note – should further commentary be provided here on this option? We have plenty of information to support this but need to know whether to proceed.

Community Boards

The effectiveness of the “local voice” in the draft proposal relies to a large extent on the existence of the community boards. The draft proposal notes that it may be possible that the passing of local government legislation amendments will allow for the provision of local boards in Hawke’s Bay.

A unitary authority with community boards does not guarantee the effective representation of Hawke’s Bay’s communities or the delivery of local services based on communities’ needs. The existence of community boards is subject to a six-yearly representation review at which point the Hawke’s Bay Council could form a view to abolish or reconstitute them. In addition the powers and duties of a community board are largely determined by the governing body (the Hawke’s Bay Council). Such a hierarchical model does not guarantee the sustained, strong, localised governance needed in an area like Hawke’s Bay.

Should the required legislation be passed to allow for local boards the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that the Local Government Commission, as provided for in Clause 21 (1) C) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, identify another preferred option as the basis of a new draft proposal. We do not consider that the issuing of a modified draft proposal would be satisfactorily transparent. The public of Hawke’s Bay need to be able to know what a local board is and what it can do on their behalf, how it and its activities are funded, and the extend of its decision making powers.

Māori representation

The draft proposal provides for the establishment of a standing committee to hear the views of Māori. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, comprising equal representation of elected representatives and mandated treaty groups, will be in place legislatively by the time the Local Government Commission issues its final proposal. HBRC considers it essential that the final proposal, or a new draft proposal, includes clarification of the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee roles and responsibilities and that of the standing committee.

Are there any other points Council wishes to make about Māori representation e.g separate Māori seats?

Taupo

The draft proposal creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty around the exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within the Hawke’s Bay Regional council area from the new unitary authority. These two areas are in the headwaters of the Mohaka River, Hawke’s Bay’s longest river.

It is clear that in the draft proposal the Commission considers that community of interest has primacy over catchment. It proposes that these areas remain with Taupo district, and be included in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, but that the regional council responsibilities in those two areas then be transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council. No direction is given in the draft proposal about how such activities would be funded and by whom, whose resource management act provisions would apply and how any differences could be resolved.

Neither Bay of Plenty Regional Council nor Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are satisfied with this outcome.

This does not meet the requirements of clause 11 (5) (d) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act.

Further analysis

In our view the draft proposal issued by the Local Government Commission in November 2013 is inadequate in terms of detail. Before the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal, or a new draft proposal, it must do much more analysis of the current functions and responsibilities of the councils, the number of FTEs associated with performing those functions and the costs of transition and integration.

Robust data and evidence must be provided in support of the preferred option so that the public can understand what the true costs and benefits of the options are.

Much has been made of the costs and benefits of the creation of the Auckland super-city, with almost as many different accounts put forward as there are commentators. It would be of huge assistance to the people of Hawke’s Bay to have an assessment of the costs and benefits of the preferred option provided by the Commission to assist them make up their minds.

If the Commission determines that local boards are to be included in the local government structure in Hawke’s Bay, and include these in a re-issued draft proposal, it is critical that the cost and resources associated with local board plans and agreements and the administration and support services associated with them are quantified.

Transition arrangements

There is very little detail about the transition phase in the draft proposal and particularly about the resourcing requirements that may be required from councils. Given that HBRC operates in as lean and efficient way as possible this is a potential concern impacting on council functions during transition and the maintenance of current levels of service to Hawke’s Bay.

Should this be included in the submission?

What other factors need to be addressed in HBRC’s submission?

Conclusion

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is of the view that the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay does not provide sufficient certainty for the ongoing resourcing and prioritisation of natural resource management functions in Hawke’s Bay. This is critical for the ongoing economic development prospects of the region.

For this reason we cannot support the draft proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its present form.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 February 2014

SUBJECT: On-farm Water Storage

Reason for Report

1. At the Regional Council meeting on 28 November 2013, Councillors requested that they be provided with the costs associated with building on-farm water storage dams, including engineering, consents, construction and any other significant costs.

Background

2. It is difficult to give a simple answer to the ‘average’ cost of dam construction, as it will depend on the scale, location, geology, type, risks and availability of water for storage (pressure on an allocation block).

3. The paper considers the typical consent requirements, the typical cost of obtaining consents, the typical costs of construction and the ongoing costs of compliance monitoring.

4. HBRC has ‘federated’ with other North Island council’s to contract Waikato Regional Council to provide expertise in the Building Act (2004) components of the construction of large dams. This recognises that it is more cost effective for one council to obtain appropriately qualified staff and provide this service to other regions than duplicating this requirement in every region.

5. Waikato Regional Council has produced a comprehensive series of fact sheets that answer the frequently asked questions around the Building Act requirements. Parts of these facts sheets are précised in this paper. They are available on http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Services/Regional-services/Consents/Dams-safety-requirements-and-building-consents

RMA requirements

6. Storage dam options may include out of river, or in river storage. Resource consents are often required for dams as they involve the taking, using, damming and diverting of water and controlling of the quantity, level and flow of water. Also, the works associated with the dam construction itself can often trigger the requirement for resource consent.

7. If the dam is constructed out of river the consenting requirements would be focused on the diversion and taking of water for storage into the dam and the use from storage.

8. In the Regional Plan there are allocation volumes set for most catchments which limit the overall amount of water that can be taken. These are set to provide a reliable supply of water for direct use from the river without storage. If these allocation volumes are fully allocated Policy 39 allows that water can be taken at “substantially higher cut-off flows”. The reliability of these takes will be less but reliability could be improved by taking this water into storage and using it for irrigation from there. There are several examples of this about the region particularly in the Ngaruroro and Tukituki catchments.

9. Under Plan Change 6 applying to the Tukituki catchment, for example, there is an allocation provision for taking water for storing for subsequent use. For the catchment there is an overall allocation of 2,000L/s and 172,800 m³/day. Taking of this water may only occur when the flow is above 22,022L/s at Red Bridge. This is the median flow so will occur no more than 50% of the time on average. Some water has already been allocated for storage from this allocation block.

10. Where the dam is constructed in river, consents will be required for the dam structure and the damming of water as well as the take and use of water from storage. Dam design will have to make provision for residual flows so the damming doesn’t prevent water contributing flow to the river at times of low to medium flows. This will depend on whether the dam is situated in a continuously flowing stream setting or in an ephemeral channel.

11. Rule 67 does provide for a small dam (catchment area less than 50 ha, volume of water stored less than 20,000 m3, crest height less than 4 m, fish passage must be provided and a residual flow must be maintained past the dam where the stream is permanently flowing) to be a permitted activity (no consent required). Storage of 20,000 m3 would provide sufficient water for irrigating up to 10 hectares of pasture over a typical Hawke’s Bay summer.

Building Act requirements

12. The Building Act introduced changes that affect the construction and ongoing monitoring of dams. The intent of the Building Act is to encourage better practice in building design, construction, and regulatory building control.

13. A key change implemented by the Building Act is the transfer of responsibility for building consent matters, regarding dams, from local councils on to regional councils.

14. This means that the regional councils have the regulatory responsibility to ensure large dams are well built, are regularly monitored, and the potential risks to people or property are minimised.

15. As a result of these Building Act changes, land owners may need to seek suitably qualified professionals to advise them on the requirements for the construction and ongoing monitoring of dam structures. This advice may consist of, but not be limited to:

15.1. Preparation of the necessary building consent and resource consent applications

15.2. Geotechincal and topographical surveys

15.3. Preparation of the necessary drawings and engineering calculations

15.4. Assessment of the dam against regulatory standards

15.5. The classification and registration of the dam with the Regional Council

15.6. Preparation of a dam safety assurance program

15.7. Provision of an annual dam compliance certificate

16. A building consent is required for all structures that meet the definition of a ‘large dam’ in the Building Act, as well as those structures that form part of the large dam structure itself — such as appurtenant structures. A large dam means a dam that retains three or more metres depth and holds 20,000 or more cubic metres volume of water or other fluid.

17. The construction of any dam, that is not a large dam is “exempt” building work, and does not require a building consent, nevertheless the Building Act requires all building work on dams to comply with the Building Code, irrespective of the size of the dam. This applies to the construction of new dams, the modifications of existing dams and also applies to appurtenant structures of dams.

RMA costs

18. Despite the availability of a specific allocation block for high flow harvesting to storage HBRC has received few applications for consents to store water for irrigation. Since 1991 HBRC has processed 19 applications for dam fills.

19. A recent consent to allow diversion and damming of water for a small, simple dam (18,000m³) cost approximately $2,000 to process (non-notified).

20. A notified application in 2009 for a large more complex dam (135,000m³) cost $40,000 to process. This included the cost of a hearing.

Building Act Costs

21. There are a number of items associated with any existing, or proposed dam building project that requires input from either regional council and/or the Building Control Authority responsible for administering the Building Act. These items may include the following:

21.1. Project Information memorandum application (PIM);

21.2. Processing of building consents;

21.3. Inspection process;

21.4. Code Compliance Certificates (CCC);

21.5. Dam safety assurance programme;

21.6. Dam compliance certificate;

21.7. Compliance schedule and warrant of fitness (if containing specified systems).

22. The Waikato Regional Council’s (who HBRC in effect contract this work out to) cost recovery policy is based on the principle of ‘user pays’. This means that all costs associated with this building consent project will be charged to the dam owner. This includes all costs involved in assessing and processing any application.

23. WRC staff advise that the average cost to process a Building Act consent for farm dams generally ranges from $4000 to $9000. Inspection and Code Compliance Certificates costs average around $3000.

Construction costs

24. The cost of constructing an on farm storage dam will vary considerable depending on topography, geology and a number of other factors.

25. Rough order construction costs for a relatively small dam (storing 20,000m³ to 50,000m³) are likely to be in the order of $50,000. A larger storage dam storing in the order of 500,000m³ could be in the order of $700,000.

26. Issues that will need to be taken into account when identifying a site for a storage dam, and planning the construction include:

26.1. The volume of water that can be stored compared to the cost of constructing the dam wall. Ideal sites will have a high storage volume compared to the cost of the dam wall;

26.2. A spillway will be required for the dam. The ideal spillway will be across grass undisturbed and solid ground. In some cases and where high water velocities may occur scour protection of the spillway may be required;

26.3. Consideration will need to be given to the potential downstream impact should the dam breach. The higher the risk to life and property downstream the higher the standard of design, geotechnical investigation, ground survey and ongoing professional monitoring;

26.4. Any application for a building consent under the Building Act will need to be accompanied by detailed design by a professional engineer.

27. Council staff responded to an official information request from Cr Belford on 8 August 2013 that, among other things, provided some detail around the construction cost (not including the cost of regulation) of stored water from small to large scale. A useful graph was provided in this that summarizes an assessment by Tonkin and Taylor comparing the cost per cubic meter of water stored. This is provided below and shows that the cost per cubic meter of storage increases as the volume of water decreases. We would emphasise again that this is representative though and any proposal could be more or less than the modelled costs shown.

RMA Consent Compliance costs

28. Typically staff would do one site inspection during or after construction and produce a compliance report. For a straight forward project (small dam) the compliance cost is $364 + GST in the current annual plan. Any non-compliance follow-up would be extra @ $104/hr.

29. There may be a compliance visit every three to five years depending on size and risk of the dam. The larger size and greater risk may require more frequent visits.

Decision Making Process

30. 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 Environment and Services Committee receives the “On-farm Water Storage” report.

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 February 2014

SUBJECT: Council Flood and Drainage Scheme Riparian Enhancement

Reason for Report

1. At the Council meeting on 28 November 2013, Council requested that details of the riparian enhancement of the HBRC flood and drainage schemes be provided, including how much potential there is in the region, how much has already been done and how much is still to be done.

2. This paper provides these details.

Work programmes

Live Tree edge protection

3. The edges of the active channels of the rivers managed by HBRC under flood control schemes are almost all defined by an intensive zone of live tree edge protection planting. The only areas not managed in this way are the reaches close to the coast where flood velocities are lower and the risk of lateral scour during a flood event is low.

4. Under the Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers, and the Upper Tukituki Scheme HBRC manages 216km of river channel. Where stock are grazed on river berm land owned or administered by HBRC, the landward side of edge protection plantings are fenced to protect that zone from stock damage. There is no access to the river available to stock in these areas.

Alternative species riparian planting.

5. In or about 2005 HBRC commenced a major project to reinstate significant stretches of the live willow edge protection on the Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro and Tukituki Rivers that had been devastated by willow sawfly. Willow sawfly was first discovered in New Zealand in the late 1990’s and spread throughout the country in subsequent years. It had a significant impact in Hawke’s Bay where it caused the defoliation of willow trees along sections of the Hawke’s Bay rivers. The defoliation occurred in cycles over several years resulting in many trees dying. Those that survived were severely weakened.

6. Willows are an essential flood control asset for Council’s Flood Control Schemes. Their roots bind what would otherwise be highly erodible ground. They define the edge of the active river preventing lateral scour of the river. The above ground part of the tree confines high velocity flood water within the active channel separating that from lower velocity water over the normally exposed river berms. Without willows, stopbanks would quickly scour as they would be exposed to high velocity water creating a high risk of a stopbank breach.

7. Willows are quick growing; have deep and expansive root bowls, are easy to establish; survive, and even thrive, on having their lower stem covered in silt; and can provide a thick zone of vegetation by management. All of these are attributes that suit their use for the protection of river edges.

8. The majority of willows which make up the Scheme edge protection zones are hybrid. Through a long term breeding programme a number of hybrid varieties have been developed which maintain the positive attributes of the willow for river control purposes, but are not invasive like the naturally occurring species.

9. New Zealand river managers have worked together to search for an alternative species of tree with similar attributes. The outcome of an extensive search assisted by CRI botanists is that there is no other species that has attributes needed for edge protection plantings. Accordingly willows continue to be an essential part of Council flood control schemes.

10. In order to reduce the risk from further outbreaks of willow sawfly, or future devastation from another disease or insect pest, HBRC have an ongoing programme of interplanting alternative species of tree within the willow edge protection zone. This initiative also provides more diversity within the river corridors and provides a pathways of biodiversity between the mountain range forming the western side of the region and the sea.

11. The attached maps show the areas where planting has taken place to date. An annual financial provision for the programme of planting is included in Council’s long term financial plans. A summary of the lengths of river berm involved is set out in the table below.

River	Completed / in progress	Future areas
Heretaunga Plains Scheme
Ngaruroro	50.8 km	14.6 km
Tutaekuri	29.3 km	12.6 km
Lower Tukituki	17.4 km	0
Total	97.5 km	27.2 km

Upper Tukituki Scheme
Waipawa	2.2 km	50.9 km
Upper Tukituki	8.1 km	47.8 km
Total	10.3 km	98.7 km

12. The performance target including in HBRC’s LTP and subsequent Annual Plans states that 0.5km of riparian land shall be enhanced each year (on average) on the Heretaunga Plains Rivers and Upper Tukituki Scheme. Given that much of the planting is the interplanting of alternative species amongst existing willow edge protection this performance target has proved difficult to measure. An annual planting programme of approx 3,500 indigenous plants and 12,000 exotic species other than willow is provided for in HBRC annual budgets.

Drainage Schemes

13. The majority of HBRC’s drainage scheme assets are situated on private land. The exception to this is the floodway of the Karamu Stream. In the 1970’s HBRC predecessor organisation commenced a programme of purchasing land along the Karamu floodway to enable effective management of the floodway. HBRC have continued this programme. In June 2004, Council were presented with a report entitled Te Karamu, Catchment review and options for enhancement, and adopted a long term programme of enhancing the Karamu flood way through the planting of vegetation that would improve habitat while not adversely impacting on the flood capacity of the Stream. This programme of work is funded largely through targeted rates levied on ratepayers within the Karamu catchment.

14. To date 5.8km of the Karamu floodway has been planted. This includes reaches of the water way being developed in conjunction with 3 marae and community groups.

Ecological Management Plans

15. Ecological Management Plans for the rivers in the region which are managed through flood control schemes are being developed. To date a Plan for the Ngaruroro River and a draft Plan for the Tutaekuri River have been completed. A Plan for the Tukituki River is programmed to be developed over the next 2 years.

16. These rivers provide habitat as part of a functioning biodiversity corridor between the ranges to the west of the region and the sea. They serve as an important wildlife refuge where common and threatened native plants and animals survive.

17. The objective of the Management Plans is to identify the ecological, cultural, recreational and flood management values associated with the river reaches which are managed for flood control purposes, and to identify management standards to be applied to protect and/or enhance those values.

18. In addition the Ecological Management Plans identify values upstream of the reaches specifically managed for flood control purposes and linkages between those river corridors and forest parks in the region’s western ranges. This will inform the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy currently being developed.

Revegetation experiment

19. In 2012 as experiment was set up to investigate the establishment and growth of indigenous tree species within the bitter willow (hoary willow) understorey in the riparian zone of the middle Tukituki River. The experiment consists of control plots and treatment plots where the poisoning of the mature willow allows more light transmission through the open canopy to promote the establishment and growth of indigenous forest tree species. This experiment is programmed for completion in 2015.

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 Environment and Services Committee receives the “Council Flood and Drainage Scheme Riparian Enhancement” report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View	Enhancement Areas - Heretaunga Plains
2 View	Enhancement Areas - Upper Tukituki

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 12 February 2014

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 20 November 2013 to 4 February 2014.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project (‘Project 192’) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4. The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5. 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 Environment and Services Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	Statutory Advocacy Map

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 4 February 2014)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
21 January 2014	NA	1	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Nga whanau o Moeangiangi Pt 42N has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order for an area lying between Waipatiki and Mohaka. This application is made under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Nga whanau o Moeangiangi Pt 42N (Wayne T Taylor)	Notified	4 February 2014 · Public notice has been given by the High Court that an application has been made. Staff are currently reviewing the application to determine if it is necessary for HBRC to join the High Court proceedings. · Deadline for joining High Court proceedings is 17 February 2014.
5 December 2013	NCC	2	Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan. A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Notified	4 February 2014 · NCC has notified Plan Change 10. Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council. · Submissions close on Friday 14 February 2014. · Previously informal comments were made by staff on draft content relating to HPUDS and RPS Change 4.
8 November 2013	HDC	3	Proposed Hastings District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant..	HDC	Notified	4 February 2014 · HDC has notified the Proposed Hastings District Plan. Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council. · Submissions close on Friday 14 February 2014. · Previously HDC released a Draft District Plan Review on which the Regional Council provided comments. Various informal comments were made by staff on draft content, particularly relating to natural hazards, HPUDS and RPS Change4, riparian management.
1 August 2013	NA	4	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)	Notified	8 November 2013. · Council has opposed the grant of the orders unless the nature and geographical extent of the orders is specified with sufficient detail to enable the Council to appropriately understand the effect of the orders sought.

	Follow-up/Request	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status/Comment
1	Harakeke waterway project – suggested Councillor fieldtrip	Mike Adye		To be arranged as part of a Heretaunga Plains fieldtrip for Councillors
2	Various field trip destinations suggested	Mike Adye		Field trips have either been held or are scheduled over the coming months.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.