Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee

Date: Tuesday 26 August 2014

Time: 10.15am

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. Short Term Replacements 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 24 June 2014

5. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 24 June 2014

6. Follow Ups from Previous Maori Committee Meetings 5

7. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 9

Decision Items

8. Planning for the Development of the Next Long Term Plan 2015-25 11

Information or Performance Monitoring

9. Update on Current Issues by the Interim Chief Executive

10. Verbal presentation on Mana Ake by Marei Apatu

11. East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal 13

12. Update on Karamu Enhancement Work 17

13. Land Science Soil Quality Update 23

14. Science Report: Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory – Current State of Knowledge 29

15. Kaitiaki Liaison Group Compliance 139

16. Statutory Advocacy Update 143

17. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 149

Please Note - Pre Meeting for Māori Members of the Committee begins at 9 am

1. Two hour on-road parking is available in Vautier Street at the rear of the HBRC Building.

2. The public park in Vautier Street on the old Council site costs only $4 for all day parking. This cost will be reimbursed by Council.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street - it would be appropriate that the “Visitors” parks be available for the Members travelling distances from Wairoa and CHB

N.B. Any carparks that have yellow markings should NOT be used to park in.

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1.	Update on Current Issues by Interim CE	Send copy of Open Spaces booklet to all Maori representatives	VM	Immediate	Copy of booklet sent out with unconfirmed minutes following the meeting
2.	RMA Section 35A Requirements	Invitation to be extended to Ms Bate by MAI to address their mandated members	VM/PP	26 August	Update at meeting
3.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: Planning for the Development of the Next Long Term Plan 2015-25

Reason for Report

1. This report gives members of the Maori committee an opportunity to feedback to Council any issues they have discussed with their representative groups that they wish to submit to council for consideration in the next Long Term Plan (LTP).

2. One of the issues discussed at the last meeting was the proposal to recommend that Council establish a second tier role in the executive to provide appropriate level input into Executive decision-making.

3. A second issue was the recommendation that Council establish a senior Maori advisor role to assist with Council planning processes by providing professional input at the early stages of plan preparation.

4. Members may wish to expand on these two proposals or confirm them as recommendations to Council.

5. Further issues may have been canvassed by members and this is an opportunity to provide those issues and ideas to council officers for consideration to include in the long term plan.

Decision Making Process

6. 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:

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

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

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

6.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

6.5. Options that have been considered include doing nothing and providing feedback or not on the draft resource management planning programme. It is appropriate that the Regional Planning Committee have input into the resource management planning programme for the next ten years The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

Recommendations

That the Maori Committee recommends that 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. Considers the following proposals from the Maori Committee as part of the Long Term Plan development process

a…………

b…………

Viv Moule

Human Resources Manager

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal

Reason for Report

1. The provincial economies of the East Coast of the North Island are heavily dependent on the use of their hill country resource. The hill country represents perhaps our greatest potential opportunity for economic growth but it is also one of the greatest liabilities in achieving sustainable use of natural resources in the region.

2. Hawke’s Bay has one of the highest rates of hill country erosion in New Zealand, and New Zealand one of the highest rates of erosion in the world. The erosion results in the loss of the productive capacity, carbon, nutrients and potential water storage of soils. Offsite impacts include sedimentation or waterways, river aggredation and damage to infrastructure (McKay 2008).

3. Land Management staff have begun the initial stages of developing a proposal to more effectively manage the challenges of sustainable land management in the hill country.

4. This paper outlines the strategic relevance of this hill country resilience proposal, its initial stages of development, and seeks feedback from the committee on key questions that relate to the proposal, specifically with regard to engagement with maori

Background

5. New Zealand faces the “wicked problem” of sustainable land use in our hill country and for the Hawke’s Bay region it is a key strategic sustainable land use issue. Multiple drivers influencing the problems and limited but complex solutions require a renewed and transformative approach to dealing with this issue.

6. Coordinating the resources dealing with these challenges through one collaborative stakeholder approach that works together using a resilience planning framework is fundamental to finding enduring solutions for the hill country.

7. A significant portion of the hill country is owned and managed by maori, maori trusts and maori business organisations.

8. Engagement with, and proactive input from maori and maori agribusiness are key to the success of the hill country resilience proposal with input possible at a number of levels.

9. Staff seek feedback on the attached proposal from the Maori Committee in three areas:

9.1. The appropriate process for engagement for maori in relation to the hill country resilience proposal

9.2. The role of HBRC in engaging with maori agribusiness in relation to the proposal

9.3. General feedback on the proposal

Decision Making Process

10. 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 Maori Committee receives the report “East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal” and provides comment to staff.

Nathan Heath

Land Services Advisor

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: Update on Karamu Enhancement Work

Reason for Report

1. Te Karamu Catchment Review and Options for Enhancement is a significant project adopted by Council in February 2004. It has been nearly a decade since the decision and it is appropriate to look back over that time and discuss the achievements to date.

2. This paper provides a succinct outline of the project’s objectives and work carried out since 2007 when physical work on the project began. It also seeks approval from Council to delegate authority to the Chief Executive for ongoing negotiation and potential purchase of a parcel of land in the vicinity of the confluence of the Karamu and Raupare Streams.

Background

3. The project is part of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme, specifically under Rating Area 6, project 296-Karamu and Tributaries and project 288-HP Special Projects (Clive River).

4. The original proposal in 2004 was for total project works costing $14 M made up of $5M construction costs, $8M enhancement costs and $1M land taking costs.

5. Physical works initially started in 2007 with an allocation of $100,000 per annum plus an additional $10,000 for maintenance, increasing by $10,000 each year to cover the previous year’s enhancement work. The annual amounts have remained more or less the same for the past eight years and recently an additional $40,000 per year was allocated specifically for use on marae based enhancement work in the Karamu catchment. This is to recognize the value Māori place on restoring the waterways and the willingness of hapu to work with Council on achieving good outcomes for the health of the river.

6. The project is part of the Asset Management Team responsibilities managed by the Engineering Section with site work, implementation and maintenance managed by the Open Spaces team. The Works Group and Science team are also involved in the project from time to time.

7. Te Karamu project is about natural asset management which means that it is an integrated approach of managing not only the essential functions of drainage and flood hazard mitigation, but as well the relationship between the land and the water. The emphasis is on planning and management to take into account the natural dynamics and diversity of waterways and work with nature to protect and enhance ecological values.

8. There is no doubt that some of the development practices that have delivered prosperity to the wider Heretaunga Plains community have simultaneously compromised the natural waterway resources. Poor water quality from both urban and rural sources is an undesirable feature of the current Karamu waterway; disliked by the public and deeply offensive to Māori, particularly hapu who have lived beside and been nourished by the waterways for centuries. This project is taking the first steps to remedy the situation and bring Te Karamu back to health. Toitū te taiao, toitū te tangata (If the environment is healthy, then the people will prosper).

9. This project includes many of Council’s key strategic goals around sustainability, water, open spaces, partnerships with Māori and operational activities. It directly relates to good social, cultural and environmental wellbeing and has been a catalyst in formulating the Council Waterway Management Philosophy.

10. This philosophy, endorsed by Council in August 2007 is for streams and drains administered as part of a Council flood control and drainage scheme flowing through public land to be managed using a multi-value approach, which where appropriate creates improved ecological, recreational, heritage, cultural, landscape and drainage values within the waterway network, and that communities take ownership of, and have pride in, their waterways.

Progress to Date

11. Part of the physical construction works involves removal of the floodgates at Pakowhai and widening the channel above the floodgates. A favourable opportunity to purchase land on the right bank of the Karamu Stream (from PPCS) was carried out early in the project to enable the widening to take place, sometime in the future. The bulk of this widening will be carried out (in 2015) through an agreement reached with HDC as part of the Whakatu Arterial Link Road, using the excavated soil for the bridge approach filling.

12. Negotiations have been ongoing over the removal of the floodgates and carrying out work around the Pakiaka urupa. This is a culturally significant area and past grievances over the mishandling of sensitive burial areas still linger. Agreement in principle has now been reached subject to the purchase of the link road surplus land provision for an alternative urupa. Negotiations with the landowner and HDC are continuing as is planning for this area. With the goodwill of all involved the Pakowhai area provides an exciting regional development opportunity (as indicated in the Te Karamu report) that provides a link with Pakowhai Country Park together with being able to highlight some of the Māori and early European history in the area. This location is rich in history with some wonderful stories associated with the area. Staff will present to Council more detail on the opportunities and suggestions for the area at the meeting.

13. Staff are keen to progress these discussions, but require Council agreement to potential unbudgeted expenditure should ongoing negotiations lead to the opportunity to purchase land necessary to achieve this outcome. Staff propose that the purchase be funded from the Heretaunga Flood Control and Drainage Scheme – Rivers, which holds a credit balance of approximately $400,000 at the close of the 2013/14 financial year. It should be noted however that 30% of all operational and capital expenditure under this Scheme is sourced from general funding. It is proposed that the general funded portion of this purchase amount is funded from the community facilities borrowing provision provided for in the Annual Plan.

14. Riparian planting has been a significant part of the work to date and has certainly been a popular activity with a great number of the public and interested groups including local hapu. An offshoot of the project has been Operation Patiki run by Kohupatiki Marae and supported by HBRC. This operation involves survey of the Patiki (Black Flounder) to look at the decline in numbers and possible causes. The operation also has a considerable planting and maintenance programme to look after their section of the Clive River with support when requested from HBRC. Other marae in the Karamu catchment have similar aims and we are working alongside them to help achieve common goals.

15. Likewise many of the neighbouring properties are doing their own planting and assistance is provided by HBRC as required. The list below includes most of the groups and individuals HBRC has supported.

Adjacent landowners HBRC has supported include:

· Nick Pattison (LB between Bridges in Havelock North)

· Cliff Poynter (LB between Bridges in Havelock North)

· Tony Neil (Whakatu)

· Alistar Curtis (Napier Rd)

· Gareth Donnelly

· Hamish & Andrea Gibbs (Grassmere Rd)

· Kay Walker (Napier Rd)

· Bruce McMillan (Farmlet Rd)

Marae & Community Groups HBRC has supported include:

· Karamu Enhancement Group (KEG) (Havelock North)

· Clive Community Group (Clive)

· Kohupatiki Marae

· Whakatu (Des Ratima / Aki Paiper)

· Forest & Bird (Whakatu, Ruahapia, Pakipaki)

· Houngarea Marae (Pakipaki)

· Ruahapia Marae (Representing the 4 Marae of Ngati Hawea)

· Mangaroa Marae (Bridge Pa)

· Karongata Marae (Bridge Pa)

· Genesis Shadehouses in schools

· Flaxmere College (practical work streams)

· Various schools

· Hohepa residents

· Mary Doyle life care complex

In terms of schools and education we have provided planting and education opportunities for 10 plus schools in any given year on Te Karamu project

Enhancement work to date is shown in the following table:

DATE	LOCATION	ACTIVITY
2007: Stage 1	Right bank, upstream of Herehere confluence to Gilpin Rd.	Approx. 0.83 km. Wetland creation, extensive planting, weed control. 41,727 plants.
2008: Stage 2	Right Bank downstream of Crosses Road	Approx. 1 km. Preparation and planting. Modified plant species based on what was learnt from stage 1. 15,739 plants Land ownership / agreements. Maintenance.
2009: Stage 3	Herehere to Crosses Rd.	Approx. 1.9 km. Existing parkland setting, outfall plantings, stream edge planting and infill planting. 7,000 plants. Initial planting at Kohupatiki (3,000 plants).
2010: Stage 4	Anderson Park to Herehere Stream	Approx. 0.75 km. Edge planting and infill. 3,500 plants. Kohupatiki 1,500 plants
2011: Stage 5	Ruahapia, opposite marae. Kohupatiki, LB Clive	Approx 1.2 km. Stormwater outlet wetland created (Ruahapia Drain). 12,000 plants
2012: Stage 6	Ruahapia	Ruahapia Stage 2, 12,457 plants Whakatu planting assistance and Awanui at Pakipaki.
2013: Stage 7	Ruahapia to SH2 Bridge RB between Havelock Bridges	Ruahapia Stage 3 from rail bridge upstream 0.8 km. Whakatu and Awanui. 14,906 plants
2014:	Infill and replacement of stages 1 to 7. Poukawa Stream, Pakipaki Karewarewa, Bridge Pa	Time needed to catch-up on all the previous work. Replace lost plants and more maintenance. Marae based work continued. Whakatu planting. Work with neighbouring properties. Work on Poukawa Stream at Pakipaki to link with Peka Peka swamp. Bridge Pa preparation and planting. 5,699 plants
	Total	In excess of 114,500 plants have been planted since 2007. Many of the areas planted are due to be selectively planted with larger tree species in the coming years now that good ground cover is getting established.

16. The next steps in this project are:

16.1. Continue with the annual enhancement works

16.2. Prepare plans for Pakowhai area

16.3. Remove old flood gates

16.4. Carry out channel works and develop Pakowhai area.

17. Te Karamu project resulted in some significant improvements in the riparian areas where work has been done to date. There remains a significant amount of work still to be carried out to complete the report objectives. Progress is dependent on available funds which generally means about 800 metres per side is currently achievable each year. For the Karamu Stream and the Awanui there is over 32 km of river in addition to the major tributaries.

18. Despite the daunting task still ahead there has been great relationships developed and support for the project from a wide range of people and organisations keen and willing to help. Although progress appears slow, there is never-the-less clear evidence of the success of this project to date.

Decision Making Process

19. 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 Maori Committee 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

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: Land Science Soil Quality Update

Reason for Report

1. This report has been prepared to give the committee an overview of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Soil Quality Monitoring (SQM) programme including an example of how it relates to topical issues such as cadmium accumulation in soils.

Background

2. Section 35(2) (a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, places a legislative and administrative responsibility on regional councils to monitor and report on the state of the environment in their regions. State of the Environment (SoE) monitoring measures and monitors human activities and their effects on the environment using environmental performance indicators.

3. Over time environmental reporting will:

· raise the level of knowledge about the state of New Zealand’s environment

· strengthen our ability to report on environmental health and trends

· provide the tools for effective evaluation of policy

· establish the information base for more informed policy and management decisions (Land Monitoring Forum publication,2009)

4. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) model has been used as a basis for many of the councils science programmes including the SQM programme. It has been applied in many other countries and is recognized as a useful framework for reporting worldwide.

The PSR model asks three fundamental questions:

· What are the pressures on the environment? This identifies environmental issues and

their causes.

· What is the state of the environment? This tells us what to monitor where, relative to

the issues.

· What is being done about these issues? This identifies policy goals and management

actions for the issues.

5. Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils (HBRC) SQM programme has been set up specifically to monitor agricultural land and native bush and it has been developed over the last 15 years.

6. The first organized efforts to look at soil quality in Hawke’s Bay began with the “500 Soils Project” co-founded with the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) during 1999-2000. The MfE ceased involvement in the project in 2001 with the understanding that regions would continue monitoring and at a future date the 500 Soils Project sites would be resampled.

7. HBRC reviewed the SQM monitoring programme in 2006 (Pearson & Reid, 2006). This provided a framework to select process sites that represent Hawke’s Bay based on soil types (and soil orders) and land use. The land uses that are covered by the SQM programme are;

· Intensive pasture

· Extensive pasture

· Orchards

· Vineyards

· Cropping

· Forestry and

· Native bush

These land uses are spread across twenty five of the major soil types found in Hawke’s Bay.

8. The result is that we can monitor the effect of all of our major land uses on our major soil types. Some land uses won’t be found on some soils but this methodology allows us to get the best understanding possible of the effects of different land uses on different soil types for a reasonable cost.

The SQM programme has so far covered extensive pasture, intensive pasture, vineyards and cropping (arable) land (fifty seven sites in total). In 2014/15 we will look at commercial forestry, native bush and orchards. The following years will see us return to sites on a rotating basis, which will allow us to build up a database of soil quality, this will help identify improvements or deterioration in soil quality (trends) and help inform policy and planning decisions.

9. In 2009 the Land Monitoring Forum (LMF) produced robust guidelines from which councils can produce nationally consistent land monitoring procedures and reporting and this was added to the Pearson & Reid, 2006 methodology mentioned earlier. The LMF draws its members from regional council staff throughout New Zealand and all have roles relating to land monitoring.

10. As a minimum councils are expected to monitor;

· Soil pH;

· Olsen P (plant available phosphorus);

· Total carbon and nitrogen;

· Anaerobically mineralisable nitogen

· Bulk density;

· Macroporosity; and

· Aggregate stability

11. HBRC monitors the above parameters plus;

Extra Agricultural Indicators

· Potassium

· Calcium

· Magnesium

· Sodium

· CEC

· Total Base Saturation %

· Organic Matter %

· C/N Ratio

Metals

· Total Recoverable Arsenic

· Total Recoverable Cadmium

· Total Recoverable Chromium

· Total Recoverable Copper

· Total Recoverable Lead

· Total Recoverable Mercury

· Total Recoverable Nickel

· Total Recoverable Zinc

Individual Tests

· Total Recoverable Uranium

· Total Fluoride

Soil Physical tests

· Particle density (g/cm³)

· Dry bulk density (g/ cm³)

· Porosity (%)

· Macro-porosity (%)

· Field capacity (%)

· AWC (%)

Organochlorine Pesticides

Twenty five organochlorine pesticides or their breakdown products are measured including DDT and Dieldrin.

12. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council tests more soil parameters than any other regional council in New Zealand. This is a reflection of the importance placed on the land/soil resource of the Hawke’s Bay region by HBRC.

Why do we need to monitor our soil quality?

13. The soil quality of our region is monitored to detect trends, both positive and negative, in soil quality. The soil is literally the foundation of every aspect of human life. It provides many services, not just as a medium in which to grow crops or pasture, but also as a buffer against nutrients/pollutants reaching adjacent surface water bodies or shallow groundwater, or providing an ecological habitat in its own right.

14. Over 30% of Hawke’s Bay’s gross regional product or GDP can be attributed to the three basic primary sectors of horticulture, pastoral farming and forestry (Hughes 2013). This is approximately $1.8 billion per year, a figure that would be unattainable and unsustainable without careful management of the soil.

15. Soil can take thousands of years to form but its structure and its chemical composition can be degraded relatively quickly. By monitoring the quality of our soils regularly, we can identify early that a particular land use on a particular soil type may need investigating further.

16. The aim of the SQM program is not to penalise individual farmers but to look at the long term trends. This information will help us use our soil in a sustainable way so that we can benefit from this valuable resource in the medium term and also to protect it in the long term for future generations.

How do we measure soil quality?

17. The LMF’s guidelines set out criteria for initiating a site and taking soil samples. A 50m transect is used and three soil identification pits are dug at 0m, 25m and 50m. These pits are described by a pedologist and the soil type is confirmed.

18. Once the soil type is confirmed, soil cores are taken along the length of the transect and combined to form a composite soil sample. Two composite samples are produced, one for metals and pesticides and one for general agricultural testing. For testing of physical soil parameters (e.g. bulk density, aggregate stability) other samples are taken from each test pit. All samples are then sent to an accredited laboratory for analysis.

19. None of this work would be possible without the cooperation of the landowners who are usually keen to have their soil investigated. The land owner receives a report on their soil as soon as we get the results back from the laboratory along with a letter offering advice if required.

SQM Results

20. All of the soil quality monitoring reports are put onto the HBRC website and so can be accessed by anyone. Actual site/property information is not mentioned in the various reports (sites are given a reference number) but a detailed record is kept by HBRC of all site locations and owner details.

21. The accompanying presentation to this paper will expand on the findings so far of the SQM program.

Topical Issue addressed by the SQM program - Cadmium

22. Cadmium (Cd) is a carcinogen that accumulates in the soil through the application of phosphate fertilizer. Once in the soil Cd is taken up by plants and is ingested by animals, where it can accumulate in organ tissue. If this offal is consumed by humans some of the Cd will be transferred and can bio-accumulate within human liver and kidney tissue.

23. Recent results from HBRC’s SQM program have shown that the average Cd concentration across all measured sites is 0.28 mg/kg. This figure is similar the findings of the 2006 Soil Cadmium report prepared for HBRC through Envirolink by Agresearch. Agresearch found that Hawkes Bay soils had an average Cd concentration of 0.30 mg/kg. Agresearch’s data was based on soil cores taken to a depth of 75 mm while HBRC’s current SQM program takes cores to a depth of 100 mm. One hundred milimeteres is now the accepted depth for testing general soil quality.

24. New Zealand does not currently have a guideline for maximum concentrations of Cd in agricultural soil but there is an industry recommended guideline (endorsed by MfE) of 1.0 mg/kg. This is also the same as the maximum concentration recommended in the Bio-solid guidelines (MfE, 2003). HBRC’s SQM results from 57 sites are all below the 1.0 mg/kg guideline.

25. In 2014 the council will produce a State of the Environment (SoE) five yearly report where all of the data collected relating to soil quality in the Hawke’s Bay region (and all other SoE programmes) will be collated and discussed in detail.

Decision Making Process

26. 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 Maori Committee receives the “Land Science Soil Quality Update” report.

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist / Team Leader - Land

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: Science Report: Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory – Current State of Knowledge

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the current status of the Biodiversity Inventory project and findings to date.

Background

2. One of the outcomes of the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LWMS) adopted by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) is to improve our understanding of the ecological services provided by indigenous vegetation and wetlands. The LWMS recognises that the regional biodiversity provides ecosystem services essential for human well-being.

3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and a range of stakeholders^{^[1]} have made a commitment to develop a Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy by the end of 2014. Part of the strategy development is the development of a Biodiversity Inventory (the Inventory).

4. The purpose of the Inventory is to summarise existing information on biodiversity to provide a more informed understanding of the current state, the past decline and drivers of decline or enhancement of regional biodiversity. It will guide the development of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy and set priorities and actions to achieve the strategy objectives. The Inventory is a living document, requiring inputs from key partners undertaking biodiversity initiatives.

5. This report summarises information collected in the Inventory to date. Knowledge gaps have been identified from which recommendations have been made to improve the Inventory and our understanding of biodiversity in the Hawke’s Bay region.

6. Published literature and expert opinions have been used to identify the presence, distribution and threat status of native species where information exist, and terrestrial, freshwater and coastal/marine habitats. Where possible, national classification and spatial information were used to quantify the current distributions and degree of change over time from predicted historical state.

Current state of knowledge

7. The key findings on vulnerable species include:

7.1. Nationally, there have been severe reductions in both species population size and distribution. The tally of extinct species continues to rise. The regional picture is similar to that of national picture since some taxonomic groups have a high proportion of vulnerable species to extinction. Several species have been lost from the region permanently. The main causes of decline include predation and grazing from introduced mammals, habitat loss and modification.

7.2. There is scant information on taxonomic groups that consist of smaller organisms, such as moss, lichens, and insects. This is due to reasons, such as difficulties in finding or identifying the species, and their lesser attractiveness, which results in a lack of awareness or interest.

7.3. Other taxonomic groups such as lizards also have knowledge gaps because sparse populations make it difficult to study them.

7.4. It would be a vast task to fully understand the state of all species, particularly cryptic species such as lichens and insects, present in the region. A process to identify species on which the region can focus on its conservation effort is needed. ‘Indicator species’ could include species that represent a taxonomic group, threatened species, or habitat types such as terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal/marine, or species that are susceptible to, and good indicator for, certain threats and pressures.

7.5. The Department of Conservation (DoC) has recently published a list of indicator species to monitor native species trends across New Zealand. This framework and the associated species should be considered so that the regional framework is aligned with DoC’s initiatives.

8. The key findings on habitats include:

8.1. Habitat loss is severe from the foothills of the main ranges down to the coast where most land is under private ownership.

8.2. Remaining indigenous habitats in such landscapes are generally fragmented and vulnerable to on-going threats such as land-use activities and introduced pests. Threatened habitat types include lowland podocarp forests, lowland streams and rivers, freshwater wetlands, and sand dunes.

8.3. ‘Historically Rare Terrestrial Ecosystems’ (defined as those being rare before human colonisation of New Zealand and covering less than 0.5% of NZ total area) are also identified in the region. Examples include frost flats in Taharua Catchment and coastal rock stacks at Cape Kidnappers. Due to their restricted distribution, they are also highly vulnerable to threats such as weed invasion, predation and land-use activities.

8.4. Most threatened habitats occur on private land, and their condition is largely unknown. An ecological survey to assess the condition of threatened habitat remnants is needed. Such a survey would provide baseline data necessary for developing objectives and outcomes under the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy.

8.5. Criteria and process for prioritising enhancement efforts is also needed. Criteria would have multiple components including ecological values as provided from an ecological survey, and social values such as existing community projects and community willingness.

Decision Making Process

9. 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 Maori Committee receives the Science Report ‘Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory – Current State of Knowledge’.

Keiko Hashiba

Resource Analyst - Land

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

Science Report: Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Inventory - Current State of Knowledge

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 2014

SUBJECT: Kaitiaki Liaison Group Compliance

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Maori Committee of the status of kaitiaki liaison in regard to TLA wastewater discharges.

Background

2. The requirement to convene Kaitiaki Liaison Group (KLG) meetings for wastewater discharges is placed on the consent holder through resource consent conditions. Consents are monitored on an annual basis by the compliance team.

3. KLG provisions in a group of wastewater discharge consents were not being complied with. Rather than an enforcement pathway, an informal meeting was arranged using HBRC Maori Liaison. This paper highlights that that liaison parties can be brought together to achieve compliance without the ill will that formal enforcement action can bring.

4. In the consenting process a KLG requirement was written into the wastewater discharge consents for the municipal plants at Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau, all operated by the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.

The consent condition specifies ‘The consent holder shall establish and provide reasonable administrative support for a Kaitiaki Liaison Group (KLG).’ The Taiwhenua O Tamatea is named as the liaison partner. There is also an advice note to this condition that provides guidance as to the scope of the liaison group.

The purpose of the KLG is to provide a forum to address tangata whenua concerns and needs arising from the exercising of this consent and other consents relating to the discharges from District Council managed municipal effluent treatment systems within Central Hawke’s Bay District. The role would include the following:

(a) to receive reports from the consent holder on progress on the discharge upgrade;

(b) to receive the results of any monitoring undertaken, to be advised of its implications, and to make this information available to tangata whenua;

(c) to recommend suitable studies or projects designed to find ways of monitoring and improving water quality resulting from the discharge;

(d) to receive reports on environmental incidents related to the consent requested by the consent authorities;

(e) to provide the KLG with opportunities to observe and participate in the monitoring programme.

Discussion

5. An initial KLG meeting was held in 2007 however there were no further meetings until 2012 after HBRC staff informed CHBDC staff that the consent requirement had not been satisfied. The expectation that at least one meeting per year should be held was made clear. There have been no meetings called since 2012, despite noncompliance grades being marked against the consent. Enforcement action was being contemplated by HBRC.

6. The phrase ‘reasonable administrative support’ has been questioned by CHBDC. The response from HBRC has been that the consent holder should call at least one meeting per year. The KLG can then decide if further meetings are required in that year.

7. The consent holder is involved in liaison with tangata whenua on a range of issues through the work of Morry Black and with the CHB community through a number of avenues. The status of this liaison, in relation to satisfying the resource consent requirement, has been raised. HBRC’s position has been that if the Taiwhenua O Tamatea agree that the kaitiaki liason provision, as expressed in the resource consent, is satisfied through other forms of liaison then no specific meeting is necessary. However for compliance the consent holder should supply a statement to this effect from the Taiwhenua O Tamatea.

8. Taiwhenua O Tamatea were contacted through, HBRC Maori Liaison, Mike Mohi to determine whether or not the liaison already undertaken by Central Hawke’s Bay District Council met the KLG requirements provided in the consent.

9. It was established that a meeting with the Taiwhenua O Tamatea and a representative of CHBDC was arranged. The provisions of the consent condition were outlined. The Chair of Taiwhenua O Tamatea, Dr Roger Maaka, advised they were not interested in going over old history in terms of non-compliance, rather they wanted to support a KLG going forward where it involved a meaningful dialogue. The CHBDC representative gave an apology for the failure to convene KLG meetings and an undertaking they would support this in the future.

Further Information

10. Hastings District, Wairoa District and Napier City Councils all have wastewater discharge resource consents attached to their municipal wastewater treatment operations.

11. A Hastings District Council liaison committee is written into their wastewater discharge consent as condition 29 of resource consent number CD130214W. Full compliance with this condition has been achieved.

12. A Napier City Council KLG is written into their wastewater discharge consent as condition 37 of resource consent number CD090514W. Full compliance with this condition has been achieved.

13. The Wairoa District Council, Wairoa wastewater consent from 1994, does not specify a KLG, this consent expires in 2019.

14. Central Hawkes Bay District Council also have KLG requirements for the Porangahau and Te Paerahi wastewater discharges. This involves the Porangahau Environmental Management Team (PEMT). Compliance with these conditions has been achieved.

15. While the failure to convene KLG meetings by CHBDC is a breach of their resource consents and enforceable under provisions of the Resource Management Act, enforcement action is a last resort for resolving noncompliance with this type. HBRC compliance officers have undertaken facilitation to achieve compliance with the consent.

16. Taiwhenua can support the KLG process by being well organised and by providing to the relevant territorial authority the contact details of their selected representatives.

17. Taiwhenua should raise any issues or concerns they have over the KLG process, with either the territorial authority or HBRC.

Decision Making Process

18. 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 Maori Committee receives the report.

Simon Moffitt

Environmental Officer, Compliance

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 26 August 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 5 June and 31 July 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 Maori Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Statutory Advocacy Update
2	Statutory Advocacy Map

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 31 July 2014)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
18 July 2014	HDC	1	Notice of Requirement A Notice of Requirement for the Whakatu Arterial Link project to provide a road between Havelock North, State Highway 2 North, Pakowhai Road, the Expressway and the Port of Napier.	HDC	Notified	31 July 2014 · Submissions close Wednesday 20^th August 2014. · Staff are currently assessing the NOR. · Details of the application can be found here Notice of Requirement
17 July 2014	NCC	2	Resource Consent Application Application is to redevelop an ex-service station to establish a commercial activity involving six retail tenancies at 83 Kennedy Road (corner of Kennedy Road and Georges Drive).	Matvin Group Limited	Notified	31 July 2014 · Submissions close Friday 15 August 2014. · Staff have assessed the application in terms of contaminated soils, the impacts of additional traffic flows and public transport and are satisfied that no submission is required. · Details of the application can be found here application documents
11 July 2014	NCC	3	Resource Consent Application Proposed residential development of a portion of the former Napier Hospital, Hospital Terrace, Napier.	Todd Property Napier Hill Limited	Notified	31 July 2014 · Submissions closed Friday 8 August 2014. · Staff have assessed the application and having had particular regard to the intensification of housing density, contaminated soils and the impacts of additional traffic flows are satisfied that no submission is required. · Details of the application can be found here application documents.
5 December 2013	NCC	4	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, hearing pending	31 July 2014 · Further submissions closed Friday 9 May 2014. HBRC staff did not consider that a Further Submission was required as none of the Submissions received by NCC contradicted HBRC’s original Submission or raised issues of concern to this Council. · In total NCC received 28 Submissions. It is anticipated that NCC will begin hearings within the next few months. · Submissions closed on Friday 14 February 2014. The HBRC submission can be found at HBRC Submissions · Previously informal comments were made by staff on draft content relating to HPUDS and RPS Change 4.
8 November 2013	HDC	5	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, hearings in progress	31 July 2014 · HDC have commenced hearings on topic by topic basis. HDC’s hearings programme scheduled to run through remainder of 2014. · Further submissions closed Friday 9 May 2014. HBRC lodged a Further Submission on a number of Submissions including on those requesting development in areas outside of HPUDS. · In total HDC received 198 Submissions on their Proposed District Plan. It is anticipated that HDC will begin hearings within the next few months. · The HBRC Submission and Further Submission on the HDC Plan Review can be found here HBRC Submissions http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC Document Library/20140214 Submission HDC District Plan.pdf · Prior to the notification of the Proposed District Plan, 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	6	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	31 July 2014 · 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. · High Court has been assessing validity of other parties joining these proceedings. No additional actions or responses have been required from HBRC since joining proceedings in late 2013.

[1] Animal Health Board, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Dairy NZ, Department of Conservation, Farm Forestry Committee, Federated Farmers, Fish & Game New Zealand, Forest & Bird, Hastings District Council, Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group, Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association, Mana Ahuriri Iwi Inc., Maori Trustee, Ministry for Primary Industries, Napier City Council, Ngā Whenua Rāhui, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated, QE II National Trust, and Te Taio Hawke’s Bay Environment Forum.

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