Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Subject: East Coast LAB Project

Reason for Report

1. Council resolved on 5 June 2014, under Project 877 Specific Regional Projects:

“Approves the carry forward in project 877-2395 (contributions) of $25,000 from 2013-14 to 2014-15 to assist with the funding of Civil Defence Emergency Management key messaging to the public associated with the Tsunami display, with the final form and venue to be approved by Council.”

2. This paper outlines the details for a new regional branded education research initiative ‘East Coast LAB’ (Life at Boundary).

3. The aim of this project is to learn from subduction plate boundary research to give New Zealand East Coast communities, including Hawke’s Bay a better understanding of the risks of living on a subduction boundary, using history and geoscience to reduce risks and be prepared for future plate boundary hazards.

Comment

4. The vision of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group is for ‘A Resilient Hawke’s Bay Community’ and one of the outcomes to be achieved is “Everyone understands the risks they face and accepts responsibility for reducing risk and being prepared”.

5. The US National Science Foundation has selected the Hikurangi Margin as one of 3 places in the world where a large amount of research effort and money (near $14m) will be spent on better understanding subduction plate boundary phenomena over the next decade.

6. New Zealand and international earth scientists are keen to find answers to the many outstanding questions about why subduction zones behave the way they do, including:

a. what controls slip behaviour - why does the megathrust stick or creep or move in slow slip events or rupture in great earthquakes

b. what causes abrupt variations in the shape of the seismogenic zone along subduction margins

c. unlocking the role of fluids on the boundary with electromagnetic imaging

d. studying earthquake geology to obtain the timing and locations of past Hikurangi subduction earthquakes and tsunami

e. using earthquake rupture and tsunami scenario modelling to better understand the sources of our risks.

7. East Coast LAB is a mutli-agency initiative which seeks to develop and build effective partnerships to promote and make accessible cutting-edge research that aims to increase understanding of the East Coast plate boundary, ultimately informing the improvement of community resilience.

8. The HB CDEM Group has approached several external project partners, including Natural Hazard Platform, GNS, NIWA, MCDEM, Massey University and EQC. A Steering Group was established for East Coast LAB on 7 November 2014 - its Terms of Reference are attached.

9. It is proposed to run the project programme over a 5 year period from 2016-21 in line with the Geoprism’s research programme, with development and launch from 2015-17 as shown in the table following.

Grow Concept

Develop

Implement Programme over 5 years

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

2019-20

2020-21

Steering Group & Project Aims established

Community Science Coordinator appointed

ECLAB Brand development, with work on creating website and centres

East Coast LAB launched under guidance of Community Science Coordinator

East Coast LAB initiatives

Next Steps or What next

10. Work has now commenced on mapping out existing and future research themes in order to assist in the development of a detailed project brief, before a programme and timeline can be finalised.

11. The project plan will include a public awareness campaign of the natural hazards associated with the plate boundary, including a dedicated website, marketing and rebranding the education room at the National Aquarium as the “East Coast LAB”. This refurbishment is estimated to cost $140,000.

Financial and Resource Implications

12. An application has been made to the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management resilience fund for resourcing and branding, and other agencies will be approached for funding support. It is recommended that the Council approves the $25,000 in project 877-2395 (contributions) in 2014-15, to contribute towards assisting with the rebranding of the education room at the National Aquarium which will include displays on risks like tsunami.

Presentation by Lisa Pearse, HB CDEM Group

13. Lisa will be presenting information at the meeting on what we already know about our plate boundary risks and plans for ‘East Coast LAB’.

Decision Making Process

1. 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:

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

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

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

1.4. The persons affected by this decision are the public of Hawke’s Bay.

1.5. There are a range of options available to Council including declining to participate in this process, however there is potential for significant learning from this project that will benefit the public of Hawke’s Bay.

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

1.7. 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

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “East Coast LAB Project” report.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that 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. Agrees to contribute $25,000 (from project 877-2395 (contributions)) toward assisting with the rebranding of the education room at the National Aquarium, including understanding tsunami risk, in collaboration with other partners involved in the mutli-agency East Coast LAB initiative.

Lisa Pearse

Emergency Management Coordinator

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management

Attachment/s

East Coast LAB Terms of Reference

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

SUBJECT: Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2015

Reason for Report

1. New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals (NZP&M) has invited the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and other local authorities to provide comments on its proposed Block Offer 2015 (BO2015) for petroleum exploration. Comments are due to be lodged by 9 February 2015. Staff have prepared draft comments for Council to consider lodging before the February deadline.

Discussion

2. In mid-November, the Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Bridges announced the start of the BO2015 process for awarding oil and gas exploration permits. The first step in that process involves consultation with iwi/hapu and local authorities.

3. NZP&M (a branch of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) administers the BO2015 and is seeking the Council’s comments on specific areas of consultation in and near the Hawke's Bay region (see location map in Attachment 1).

4. The Block Offer process is a process through which the Government seeks to attract companies that have a demonstrated ability to prospect, explore and mine petroleum in a safe and environmentally responsible way. Exploration won’t necessarily be undertaken in all the blocks on offer.

5. BO2015 requires bidders to submit ‘staged work programme bids’ – where bids are submitted to undertake a work programme to explore for petroleum resources. The specific exploration activities^{^[1]} to be undertaken in a permitted area are not determined as part of the Block Offer process. The Government is consulting on a total area of 476,600 square kilometres across four proposed offshore areas and three proposed onshore areas. The areas being consulted on generally exclude any existing permits, and do not include any World Heritage sites, Marine Reserves or areas listed in Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

6. In relation to the Hawke's Bay region, the proposed area (see Attachment 1) is the Offshore Pegasus and Offshore East Coast basins (79,067 km²) for consultation.

7. Much of these proposed offshore areas lie beyond the region’s 12 nautical mile limit. Provisions of the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan do not apply beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

8. The Minister says feedback from iwi and local authorities ensures that any areas of sensitivity are carefully considered before the 2015 tender round is finalised. Staff have drafted comments on the BO2015. Those comments are set out in Attachment 2. It is recommended that Council considers those draft comments and decides whether or not to forward them (with or without amendments) to NZP&M.

9. Following consultation with iwi/hapu about BO2015, and feedback from local authorities, NZP&M will prepare a report for the Minister. The Minister will then make a final decision on the blocks to be included in the Block Offer 2015. No further consultation will be undertaken with iwi/hapu and councils on the BO2015 and subsequent decisions on the grant of petroleum exploration permits.

Financial and Resource Implications

10. There are no direct financial or resource implications of providing comments to NZP&M on the BO2015. Staff time associated with preparing the comments is catered for within the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project (Project 196). Resourcing matters regarding petroleum exploration or any other activity requiring resource consents are dealt with as and when the consent applications are made, and costs are borne by the applicant.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

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

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

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

11.5. Options that have been considered include doing nothing (i.e. not providing comments to NZP&M on the proposed Block Offer 2015) and providing comments.

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

11.7. 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

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2015” report.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

3. Agrees to forward the attached comments to New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals on the proposed Block Offer 2015, subject to any further amendments agreed at the meeting.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Location Map of Proposed 2015 Block Offer Area
2	Draft Comments on NZ Petroleum and Minerals proposed Block Offer 2015

Draft Comments on NZ Petroleum and Minerals proposed Block Offer 2015

Attachment 2

Our Ref: RMP 2-2

xx January 2015

Jonathan Gibbard

New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

PO Box 1473

Wellington 6140

via email to: blockoffer2015@mbie.govt.nz

Dear Mr Gibbard

Comments on Proposed Block Offer 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed Block Offer 2015 (‘BO2015’). As you noted in your letter of 14 November, we think our local knowledge is valuable for making better informed selection of blocks for the BO2015.

You had invited comments on a number of specific matters. Those comments are provided in section 2.

These comments were considered and agreed by the Council at its meeting on 17 December 2014.

Yours sincerely

1. liz lambert

Interim Chief Executive

Phone: (06) 835 9214

Email: liz@hbrc.govt.nz

Address for Service: Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Private Bag 6006

NAPIER 4142

Attn: Gavin Ide

e: gavin@hbrc.govt.nz

p: (06) 833 8077

1. General comments

1.1 Capacity and engagement

In recent years, HBRC has continued to develop capacity and liaise with other councils and central government agencies regarding oil and gas exploration activities in Hawke's Bay. Examples include participation in a public forum event hosted by Hastings District Council on the topic of oil and gas exploration industry. Another example is the ongoing liaison at various levels with government officials and departments, including NZP&M.

Oil and gas exploration has clearly emerged over recent years as a hot topic in public submissions made on HBRC’s Long Term Plan and 2014-15 Annual Plan. We are conscious that the issue of oil and gas exploration is one in which there is significant public interest, and there is much debate within our community around the environmental issues and risks associated with these activities. The Oil and Gas Symposium hosted by Hastings District Council approximately 18 months ago confirmed the high level of public interest.

HBRC recognises that significant local and national economic benefits may accrue should oil and gas production develop commercially in the East Coast Region. We are also conscious of the potential impact on our broader economy and social environment and take this opportunity to provide comments on some additional matters.

HBRC’s work programme adopted in the 2014/15 Annual Plan does indicate HBRC will “initiate community engagement on oil and gas exploration policy development.” This initiative is pending a visit to the region by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment which is now looking likely in early 2015. Planning processes for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan is considering the development of a broader Energy Futures strategy.

1.2 Sensitive areas

HBRC has previously indicated to NZP&M in relation to earlier Block Offers that we would be uncomfortable with any offer made across the region’s productive aquifers. We welcomed the Minister’s decision on the 2014 Block Offer to exclude the aquifers from the finalised areas.

We note that the BO2015 does not propose any onshore areas, so we do not have to revisit exclusions of the region’s productive aquifers.

From the maps available with the BO2015 documentation, it appears that the BO2015 Offshore Pegasus area barely extends into the Hawke's Bay region, with much of the area lying south east of the region beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

1.3 HBRC’s Tier2 Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan

You will probably be aware that HBRC has a statutory responsibility under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA) to conduct a Tier 2 response to marine oil spills that occur within the coastal marine area under our jurisdiction. As part of this responsibility, and in accordance with the MTA, we are required to maintain a plan which details how a Tier 2 response operation is to be undertaken in response to a marine oil spill. The Plan can be viewed on HBRC’s website. Annex 4 of that Plan sets out sensitive areas and twenty priority areas for protection (in the event of an oil spill incident).

2. Comments on particular matters

The following comments are provided in response to your invitation to comment on two particular matters:

(a) an indication of how HBRC classifies petroleum exploration activities in regional planning documents; and

(b) wāhi tapu areas and other areas of significance to Maori.

2.1 Classification of petroleum exploration activities in RMA planning documents

In relation to the BO2015, we provide comments only in relation to the region’s coastal plan (i.e. the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan, or ‘RCEP’) and not our other regional plan applicable onshore.

HBRC’s RCEP contains very little policy direction specifically relates to petroleum exploration. Instead, most RCEP provisions relate to a type of effect or activity generally - they do not allow, restrict or prohibit petroleum exploration or production activities per se. (We suggest this would be fairly typical of regional planning instruments prepared under the RMA because the RMA focuses on the actual and potential effects (both beneficial and adverse effects) of activities on the environment – not the activities and types of activities themselves).

There are a number of resource consent requirements likely as a result of activities associated with petroleum exploration. In general terms, the presumption in the RMA is that many activities in the coastal marine area (s12), any discharges of contaminants to water (s15) must either comply with a rule in a regional plan, or gain resource consent^{^[2]}.

2.2 Consent requirements for petroleum exploration

Table 1 outlines the possible consent requirements for petroleum exploration activities^{^[3]}. This is a list of the likely activities that will be involved in their operation.

In some cases, an exploration permit holder may determine that they can comply with all conditions of the relevant permitted activity rules and therefore can carry out those activities without requiring consent. This level of detail is anticipated to be determined by permit holders nearer the time of operations, or when other consent applications are lodged.

TABLE 1: Indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore^{^[4]} petroleum exploration in Hawke's Bay CMA

Activity Type	Relevant RCEP rule(s)^{^[5]} INDICATIVE ONLY	Rationale for consent requirements	Likely consent requirements
Disturbances, depositions and extractions in CMA
Removal or Deposition of Material	Removal: Rule 144 [D] Deposition: Rule 147 [RD] Rule 151 [D]	Removal of sand or gravel other than small scale. Deposition of any substance on the foreshore or seabed. Relevant threshold 50,000m³at a site in any 12 month period.	Discretionary activity. Restricted Discretionary or Discretionary activity.
Drilling, construction or alteration of bores for gas and oil resources, seabed explorations and geotechnical investigations	Rule 138 [P] Rule 130 [D]	Disturbance of the foreshore and seabed, including location in relation to management areas: § Port or Harbour Management Area § Significant Conservation Area § Historic Heritage Area § Aquaculture Management Area	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Disturbance of foreshore and seabed affecting historic heritage	Rule 141 [RD]	Disturbance in a manner that will destroy, damage or modify an historic heritage feature. Refer to Schedule M and planning maps for locations.	Restricted Discretionary activity.
Disturbances within specified Significant Conservation Areas	Rule 144 [D]	Disturbance or removal of materials in fours SCAs, - exemption for applies scientific purposes.	Prohibited activity.
Disturbances of seabed arising from manoeuvring of ships (e.g. propeller wash)	Rule 135 [P]	Disturbance of foreshore and seabed arising from passage and manoeuvring ships.	Permitted activity.
Discharges to land and water in CMA
Discharge of contaminant or water into water in CMA, or discharge of contaminant into land (e.g. hydraulic fracturing)	Rule 160 [D]	Discharge of contaminant which may result in that contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water in the CMA	Discretionary activity (unless specifically classed by another rule in the RCEP as non-complying or Prohibited activity).
Discharge of drilling muds, cuttings and fluids for purposes of investigating oil and gas resources	Rule 161 [P] Rule 160 [D]	Control over location, contamination level and risk of discharge of groundwater to surface water.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Discharges to air
Flaring of hydrocarbons from petroleum exploration or mining	Rule79 [C] Rule 86 [D]	Discharge of contaminants to air impacting surrounding areas.	Controlled or Discretionary activity.
Discharges of contaminants to air in Coastal Environment	Rule 81 [P] Rule 63 [RD] Rule 64 [D]	Other discharges of contaminants to air.	Permitted (minor discharges) or Restricted Discretionary (not complying with Permitted activity conditions) or Discretionary (not regulated by other rules).
Structures in CMA
Structures for storage of petroleum products or other contaminants within a SCA	Rule 129 [Pr]	Any activity involving erection or placement of such a structure in, on, under or over the foreshore or seabed within a SCA.	Prohibited activity (consent cannot be applied for).
Removal and demolition of structures in , on, under or over the foreshore or seabed	Rule 121 [P] Rule 117 [D]	Disturbance and any associated deposition.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Occupation of space in CMA
Occupation of space associated with exploration operations and structures	Rule 180 [P] Rule 178 [D]	Effects of excluding public and other activities from use of coastal space, including potential conflict with other uses and users.	Permitted or Discretionary activity.
Storage and dumping of hazardous substances in CMA
Hazardous substances in the CMA (storage or dumping)	Storage: Rule 172 [P] Rule 171 [RD] Rule 174 [Pr] Dumping: Rule 173 [Pr]	Manage risk according to character, scale and intensity of activity and any associated effects of potential spillage or discharge, including sensitivity of environment.	Permitted, Restricted Discretionary or Prohibited activity (in a SCA). Prohibited activity.

Noise emissions in CMA
Emission of noise for marine seismic surveying purposes	Rule 176 [P], Rule 175 [RD]	Potential impact of underwater noise (including vibration) on marine life.	Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity. Rule 176 includes “effects on marine mammals” as a matter for discretion.
Noise emissions in CMA	Rule 176 [P] Rule 175 [RD]	Level, characteristics and frequency of noise (construction and other) including compatibility with surrounding environment. Rule 175 includes effects on marine mammals as a matter for discretion.	Permitted or Restricted Discretionary activity.
Take and, use of coastal water
Taking and use of coastal water	Rule 156 [P] Rule 154 [D]	Effects of water take on SCAs and their values. Permitted rule does not apply to taking of water in six SCAs.	Permitted or Discretionary activity (in some SCAs).

2.3 Additional considerations

Table 1 is intended as an indicative summary of rules in the RCEP. There are may be other activities that may trigger the need for consent (or compliance with a permitted activity rule).

In relation to offshore installations and ships, we are aware that the Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 are applicable within the coastal marine area to some of the operations undertaken during mineral exploration. For some operations and activities covered by these Regulations, rules in the RCEP also apply.

2.4 Wāhi tapu and other sites of significance to Māori

Wāhi tapu and other sites of significance to Maori above mean high water springs are not identified in regional plans or the regional policy statement. These are typically identified in district plans.

In relation to the coastal marine area, the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) is the relevant regional planning document. The RCEP identifies 21 Significant Conservation Areas that have important ecological, historic, scientific and/or cultural value. The RCEP also identifies a number of historic heritage areas and features. Some of those historic heritage areas relate to wāhi tapu areas registered on the Historic Places Register. In addition to these mapped areas in the RCEP, Ngati Kahungunu has proclaimed that the “whole of the coastal marine area is of significance to Ngati Kahungunu. The Coastal Margin is also of importance to Ngati Kahungunu.” ^{^[6]}

Based on the map titled ‘Proposed Block Offer 2015 Offshore Pegasus 15PEG-R1’ supplied by NZP&M to HBRC, none of the ‘Proposed Release Area’ appears to be located in any of the RCEP’s Significant Conservation Areas nor Historic Heritage Areas. We submit that the BO2015 Offshore Pegasus area remains as not extending into any of those Significant Conservation Areas or Historic Heritage Areas.

3. Attachments:

1. Location map of Significant Conservation Areas in Hawke's Bay coastal marine area (from RCEP planning maps).

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Subject: Open Spaces - Individual Park Plans

Reason for Report

1. Individual Park Plans for Pekapeka, Waitangi and Pakowhai Regional Parks have been completed. This briefing paper seeks Council adoption of these Plans.

Background

Regional Park Network Plan

2. At its meeting on 20 November 2013 the Environment and Services Committee (E&SC) adopted the Regional Park Network Plan (Network Plan) as the guiding document for managing and improving HBRC’s open space/regional park assets.

3. A requirement of the Network Plan is that 10 year Individual Park Plans are developed to guide the management, maintenance and development of each regional park asset.

Individual Park Plan Review

4. In November 2013 council were advised that a programme of management plan review had commenced and that Council endorsement for these plans would be sought during the 2014 calendar year.

5. At the October 2014 E&SC meeting, committee members were handed out copies of the draft plans for Pekapeka, Waitangi and Pakowhai regional parks that specifically included:

5.1. Draft narratives for each park containing background information, visions, values and classifications

5.2. Draft concept development plans

5.3. Recommended appropriate activities for each park

5.4. Draft 10 year expenditure estimates for each park (maintenance, capital and management)

6. Note that the drafting of an Individual Park Plan for Tutira Regional Park is to be progressed in 2015.

Discussion

Park Maintenance Requirement

7. Priority is given to maintaining existing park assets in the first instance ahead of developing existing park assets or acquiring new park assets.

8. Maintaining existing regional park assets involves:

8.1. maintaining park infrastructure (pathways, tables, seats, signage, fencing, carparks)

8.2. plant and animal pest control

8.3. community engagement provision (recreation and education)

8.4. maintaining plantings (restorative, conservation, investment, enhancement, amenity)

8.5. ensuring HBRC is meeting Health and Safety responsibilities in regard to provision of open space

8.6. maintaining (ecological, visitor satisfaction).

Proposed Park Development

9. The development philosophy for each Regional Park is based on capital works occurring to an agreed plan and when funding permits.

10. Park developments have been derived from historical management objectives, ecological monitoring recommendations, operational need and consultation where completed.

11. In the first instance priority is given to proposed developments that protect, promote and enhance park values.

12. Staff have summarised proposed park developments and listed in order of priority (determined by staff) in the table below.

Regional Park	Key Proposed Developments
Pekapeka	- Resource consent for aerial application of selective herbicide - Update / replace / install signage (interpretive and gateway) - Landscape predator control program - Toilet installation at interpretation site carpark - Western wetland enhancement (community provision) - Northern walkway & carpark (loop track) - Revegetation of northern perimeter of wetland and Poukawa Stream - Land acquisition & enhancement (Waireporepo Pa, northern carpark, southern secondary arrival area) - Island Pa site enhancement - Open water and bittern habitat enhancement (northern end)
Pakowhai	- Update gateway signage, install interpretive signage - Entrance and parking reconfiguration in conjunction with HDC - Walkway bridge abutment protection - Toilet provision - Planting Program (community provision) - Installation of stream crossing structure for dogs near bridge approaches - Park expansion / land acquisition - Service track relocation - Lake creation near the old Raupare bridge - Foot bridge (Raupare Stream) - Establishment of dog agility area and infrastructure - Pedestrian overbridge (over Pakowhai Rd linking Ruahapia with the park)
Waitangi	- Signage installation (gateway, interpretive and educational) - Coastal erosion control planting program (Muddy Creek wetland protection) - Upgrade / replace vehicle barriers onto the beach at East Clive - Upgrade Awatoto primary arrival area - Construct a celestial compass in alignment with Te Matau a Māui Voyaging Trust concept - Upgrade Richmond Rd primary arrival area (carpark) - Upgrade Ferry Rd secondary arrival area - Amenity and restoration planting program (community provision)

Consultation

13. A variety of consultative mechanisms were utilized, providing opportunity for public and stakeholders to comment on and/or have input into the draft park plans. These are summarised in the table below.

Regional Park	Consultation Method
Pekapeka	Stakeholder meetings held with kaitiaki (over a period of 12 months), Fish and Game NZ, Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird Hastings Havelock North, Friends of Pekapeka, Pekapeka Shooters Association. Presentations to Forest and Bird New Zealand and a variety of community groups Signage installed at the main entrance advising of draft planning process and contact options to view plans / provide comment (in place for 10 months) Notification via “Our Place” publications
Pakowhai	Visitor Survey Signage installed at the main entrance advising of draft planning process and contact options to view plans / provide comment (in place for 1 month) Notification via “Our Place” publications Presentation to HBRC Maori Committee
Waitangi	Signage installed at the main entrance advising of draft planning process and contact options to view plans / provide comment (in place for 3 months) Notification via “Our Place” publications Presentation to HBRC Maori Committee

Pekapeka Regional Park

14. Comments received have overall been supportive of the Pekapeka Regional Park draft plan. Specific feedback has been received regarding:

14.1. The need for a toilet at the interpretation site

14.2. That duckshooting should be banned within the wetland

14.3. That the proposed northern walkway is not in keeping with park values and has potential to displace Australasian Bittern from the wetland

15. The specific feedback is being duly considered by staff. Staff advise that the proposed northern walkway will not progress if unsupported by any key stakeholder, namely local hapu, neighbouring landowners, DOC, Forest and Bird, Fish and Game NZ, Friends of Pekapeka, the Pekapeka Shooters Association.

Pakowhai Regional Park

16. Comments received have overall been supportive of the Pakowhai Regional Park draft plan. The majority of feedback received relates to:

16.1. The park remaining a dog off lead exercise area

16.2. The need for a toilet within the park

16.3. The need for safer access / entry into the Park off Pakowhai Road

16.4. More car parking

Waitangi Regional Park

17. Comments received have overall been supportive of the Waitangi Regional Park draft plan. This park has received the least amount of feedback from public. The majority of feedback received relates to:

17.1. Improved access off the state highway into the park at Awatoto

17.2. A request for the construction of a celestial compass at Awatoto

17.3. The establishment of a coastal care group at East Clive

17.4. Further enhancement of ecological values within the park from the Waitangi Estuary through to the Tukituki Estuary

18. Opportunities for stakeholders and public to provide input into specific park development activities will continue.

Financial and Resource Implications

19. Financial implications associated with the current management of the regional park network has been presented to Council as part of the development of the 2015-25 LTP.

20. It should be noted that as the parks develop and increase in public popularity, a further increase in maintenance may be necessary.

Decision Making Process

21. 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:

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

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

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

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are the users of the open space areas who have had the opportunity to comment on these Plans, and the general public of Hawke’s Bay who have the opportunity to enjoy these regional assets.

21.5. Options that have been considered have been canvassed as part of the consultation process for the Park Network Plan and these individual park plans.

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

21.7. 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

The Environment and Services 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. Adopts the draft Individual Park Plans for Pekapeka, Pakowhai and Waitangi Regional Parks.

Steve Cave

Manager,

Open Space Development

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 10 December 2014

Subject: Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project

Reason for Report

1. This report seeks agreement for Council to partner with Department of Conservation, Landcare Research, and Cape Sanctuary with financial support from the Aotearoa Foundation, to enhance the biodiversity and economic outcomes of approx. 26,000 hectares of land to the East of Heretaunga Plains and the Napier and Hastings urban areas.

2. The project, known as Te Matau A Maui, will be undertaken over a 5 year period at a total cost of $6.1 million. The proposed contribution from HBRC is $1.5 million.

Background

3. In November 2013 Council was presented with an update on the Poutiri Ao O Tane (Poutiri) project and a trial of the wide scale predator control concept. Council approved an initial due diligence testing whether the concept of wide scale predator control was potentially able to be implemented on a wider scale through a project.

4. Over the last 12 months a range of activities have taken place as part of a stage one due diligence on the concept. This has culminated in a proposal for a project called Te Matau A Maui.

Aotearoa Foundation

5. The Aotearoa Foundation is the philanthropic trust of Julian Robertson. They have committed $2.3m over five years to Te Matau A Maui project. Approximately $1.8m is targeted to Cape to City and $0.5m to Poutiri. The Foundation’s investment is strongly focused towards habitat and species restoration, community engagement and research.

6. This contribution is subject to agreement from other parties to their active and financial involvement in the project.

The Project

7. The umbrella project, Te Matau A Maui, is a significant multi stakeholder project. The Te Matau A Maui project includes the ongoing Poutiri Ao O Tane project and the new Cape to City project.

8. The maps attached as Attachments 1 & 2 show the areas involved in the projects.

9. There are five work streams:

9.1. Pest management

9.2. Habitat restoration / enhancement

9.3. Research and monitoring

9.4. Community engagement/education

9.5. Species restoration

10. Partners in the project are:

Partner	Financial commitment
Aotearoa Foundation	$2.3m
Department of Conservation	$1.6m
Landcare Research	$0.7m
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council	$1.5m
Total	$6.1M

Cape Sanctuary

11. Cape Sanctuary are a key partner in the proposed project and invest around $600k pa into activities on the Cape Sanctuary property.

Cape to City project workstreams

Pest management

12. The pest management workstream includes the full scale field trial of cost effective widescale predator control (feral cats, mustelids and hedgehogs) across 26,000 ha. Work also includes some highly targeted rat control at specific sites where species will benefit from this. HBRC funding of $1.5M will largely be targeted to this project. This includes $300k for project management over the five years.

13. The total workstream cost is $2.2M with the other contributions being from DOC most of which is for Poutiri Ao O Tane.

Habitat restoration and enhancement

14. There is significant habitat restoration and enhancement proposed within the project. The majority of this is along the riparian margin of the Maraetotara River where historically HBRC have undertaken significant willow clearance and riparian enhancement work in collaboration with the Maraetotara Tree Trust, QE II and land owners. HBRC have invested substantial Regional Landcare Scheme funds in fencing and planting the margins of the waterway.

15. A further investment of $750k in habitat restoration, largely funded by the Aotearoa Foundation, will occur under this project.

Research and monitoring

16. The wide scale predator control concept behind Cape to City is challenging the current understanding of the impacts of predators and the economic and biodiversity benefits of their management.

17. It is therefore critical that high quality research is a part of the project. This is both to test the effectiveness of pest control as the project progresses, and to enable the adaptation of techniques where necessary; and to ensure that what is learned is available in a credible and robust format for others to build on in the future. Landcare Research New Zealand’s leading Crown Research Institute for vertebrate pest management is a key partner and significant investor in the project.

18. The $1.3m research and monitoring workstream is largely funded by Landcare Research and the Aotearoa Foundation.

Community engagement / Education

19. An expected key outcome of the Te Matau A Maui project is to step change the profile and engagement of the community in biodiversity under the overarching umbrella of the HB Regional Biodiversity Strategy. To achieve this there will be a particular focus on involving Maori, the urban community and schools.

20. This workstream of $750k is funded by the Aotearoa Foundation and DOC. DOC will be investing $300k in project management and associated activities that relate to community engagement. This will largely come from their partnerships team.

Species restoration

21. The opportunity to restore a range of species to mainland Hawke’s Bay will be available as a result of the predator control and habitat enhancement undertaken under the Project. Cape to City will leverage the significant success of the Cape Sanctuary in this endeavour.

22. Widescale predator control will enable species protected with Cape Sanctuary to become established in the wider farmland scale. Species that are expected to benefit from this include Pateke, Kakariki and Kiwi and Long Tail bats in the Mohi bush.

23. Cape to City also proposes to re-establish blue duck on the Maraetotara River which would be a major restoration achievement.

24. Under the Poutiri project efforts continue on the reintroduction and re-establishment of mottled petrels, Cook’s petrels, kaka, kakariki, and pateke to the area.

25. The majority of the $1.1 m species programme is funded by DOC and the Aotearoa foundation

Alignment with Hawke’s Bay draft Biodiversity Strategy

26. Te Matau A Maui project is potentially transformational both in terms of biodiversity and community engagement. The two most significant impacts on NZ and HB’s unique biodiversity are plant and animal pests and loss of habitat. Cape to City is designed to see if predator control can be integrated into HBRC’s possum control area programme and act as a template for future roll out across the region. If successful it will act as the large scale predator pest layer that can sit alongside other HBRC and community habitat restoration initiatives such as riparian planting.

27. The concept expressed in the draft Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy of native species and habitats coexisting with our backyards will only be achieved if a cost effective way of reducing the impact of predators on our native fauna can be found and implemented.

Financial and Resource Implications

28. A budget summary for HBRC’s animal pest control activities is set out in Attachment 3 attached. This budget summary includes provision for HBRC involvement in Te Matau A Maui project as outlined above, and provision of an additional animal pest team staff member to integrate an expected increase in the area of the current PCA initiative from the current 500,00ha to a predicted 650,000ha over the next 2 years as a result of the Tbfree programme being withdrawn. This integration will involve working with land owners in the area to protect the investment made by the region in achieving low possum numbers.

29. Staff understand that both Landcare Research and Department of Conservation have already indicated their financial commitment to this project.

Decision Making Process

30. 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:

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

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

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

30.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers and residents of Hawke’s Bay.

30.5. Options have been canvassed as part of the development of the HB draft Biodiversity Strategy and previous reviews of the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

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

30.7. 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

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2. Approves the funding of $1.5m, including $300,000 of staff time for project management, over the next five years from existing biosecurity budgets to implement Te Matau A Maui project.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

1	Cape to City Project Map
2	Poutiri Ao o Tane Map
3	Animal Pest Funding
4	Restoring the Mauri of Matau a Maui	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Subject: Feral Goat Management

Reason for Report

1. Council have requested staff to prepare a report providing background on HBRC’s role in feral goat management within the region and potential options for more effective management of goats.

Background

2. Feral goats are a significant pest within the Hawkes Bay region particularly in terms of the damage they cause to flora. They are also however considered by some land owners/occupiers in parts of the region considered an important resource. This is both in terms of an on farm management tool and as a resource that can be mustered and sold.

3. Feral goats are currently a site management pest in the RPMP and are managed on a site by site basis. In early 2008 with the review of the RPMP coming up in 2011 staff were considering options for the RPMP review in relation to feral goats.

4. In May 2008 a regional goat management stakeholder group was initiated with the intention of bringing together stakeholders with disparate views on the benefits and issues of goats to establish whether an effective common approach to goat management could be developed. The attendees to this group are listed in attachment. The group met eight times between May 2008 and March 2012.

5. Over the course of the group meetings a range of initiatives were undertaken regarding exploring the options for better feral goat management. These included a feral goat management plan discussion document which was distributed to all significant stakeholders involved in goat management, and a farmer survey to all properties in northern Hawkes Bay over 10 ha (approximately 500 properties).

6. In addition an early draft 30 year plan was prepared that looked at providing a framework for incrementally applying more effective long term goat management options discussed by the stakeholder group. This plan considered both the economic benefits and the negative environmental effects of goats. An integrated GIS map across the range of stakeholders of the areas where goats provided a significant environmental risk to native flora was also prepared.

7. Over the course of the four years the group progressed from very different early positions across the environmental and economic impacts / benefits of goats to a more collective position. Essentially there was general agreement that goats while a valuable resource to some were a significant pest at certain sites. There was also recognition across the group that while options do exist for effective fencing of goats in steep hill country this is often both costly and challenging to construct and maintain.

8. A key initiative that came out of the group was the Coordinated Management Area (CMA) concept. Essentially this concept was that key areas would be selected within which there were overlapping economic and environmental benefits from more coordinated larger scale goat management. HBRC would then facilitate a process amongst the various key land owners/stakeholders in that area who were already (or potentially interested in) undertaking goat control to better coordinate the collective efforts. These CMAs would be incrementally rolled out across areas in the region that would most benefit from this additional management.

9. The intention was to see if this more coordinated collective effort could result in better outcomes and reduced control costs over time. The first CMA trial was initiated in Mangaharuru three years ago. A recent report on the results of that CMA trial indicates that more coordinated control has resulted in both better outcomes and the ability to reduce long term maintenance costs for key stakeholders. Twelve months ago a CMA was initiated on a number of properties in the Whangawehi catchment in Mahia with the possibility this could be extended over the whole Peninsula in time. A third CMA is currently being formed via discussion with landowners and other stakeholders extending from the Tutira area out to the coast.

10. The group made the decision that the CMA concept was preferable as a broad scale management tool for feral goats rather than rules in the RPMP. However at that time the Biosecurity Act 1993 did not include the changes that have subsequently been made in relation to pathway plans and “Good neighbour” rules

11. One of the challenges facing the CMA concept is the potential for a lack of participation by a small minority when the majority are committed to goat management in a particular area. Another key issue is where significant money is invested in riparian or other plantings on one property and the adjacent neighbour has goats that are coming over to consume the trees planted. In many cases the neighbour with the goats is happy for control to be undertaken on their property (if they don’t have to meet the costs of control) but this is not always the case. Sometimes goats are cited as part of their farm management practises but in reality little or no action is taken to contain these goats on the property where the goats reside.

12. In September 2012 a number of changes were made to the Biosecurity Act. One of change was the inclusion of the concept of “Good Neighbour“ rules. Such rules could deal with the inaction of a neighbour who has a pest on their land that is creating unreasonable external costs on others whose values are impacted by that pest. This change was created with the intention to bind the Crown to regional pest programmes but in principle this may be an effective tool to assist better long term management of goats in the region.

13. Staff propose that as part of the upcoming RPMP review that the option of a good neighbour rule for goat management is explored. This rule would have a specific context:

13.1. Where a CMA for goats exists and within that area a property refuses to allow access for the control of goats within the CMA programme.

13.2. Where there are significant investments in planting programmes taking place on a property and an adjoining landowner has refused access to allow the control of goats to protect those plantings. In this case the option should be for those who are claiming the use of goats on their property as a farm a management tool to effectively fence those goats off from getting to adjacent planted areas. If this is unable to be done they should be required to allow access for the control of goats on their property to protect those plantings on an adjacent property.

14. Staff propose that the as part of the RPMP review process how such a rule could be applied and implemented should be explored. This will need to include risks or issues which may arise from its implementation and the level of benefit or value in having this regulatory tool to assist with goat management within the region.

Financial and Resource Implications

15. The approach proposed in this paper of Coordinated Management Areas (CMA) and the inclusion of a “Good Neighbour” rule within the upcoming Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) review can be managed within Council’s existing biosecurity budget.

16. However if significant compliance activities were required as part of an RPMP rule on feral goats or the CMA programme was scaled up then additional resource may be required.

Decision Making Process

17. 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:

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

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

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

17.4. The persons affected by this decision are landowners over parts of the region where goats roam.

17.5. A range of options have been considered over time by the goat consultative group.

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

17.7. 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

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the Feral Goat Management report.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

3. Instructs staff to scope out the options and value of a Rule for managing the externality effects of feral goats within the region through the Regional Pest Management Plan review.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

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 10 December 2014

Subject: Twyford Global Consent Update

Reason for Report

1. Resource consent applications have been lodged by the Twyford Irrigation Group Incorporated (TIG) seeking to establish global consents for the Twyford unconfined and semi-confined groundwater areas. They have also applied to replace most of the “x” permits which are due to expire in January 2015. This report and presentation provides an update on progress. Associated with this report will be a verbal presentation from Jonathan Brookes, an AgFirst employee who works for TIG and has monitored the response of irrigators to changing water reliability.

Consents may be Subject to Hearings

2. The applications are currently being processed under the RMA. The application for the unconfined zone has been limited notified. Members of the Hearings Committee may be required to sit on the panel to hear this application if there are submissions lodged. There is also a right for the applicant to seek a hearing if they are not satisfied with either decision if it is processed by staff.

3. Councillors who may potentially sit on this panel will need to remain neutral on this matter to ensure there is no risk of conflict of interest.

Twyford Irrigation Group

4. Council staff and TIG representatives have been meeting regularly over the past two years to work towards improving the understanding of each other’s roles, to share water resource knowledge and understanding and to explore alternative water management options. This has included discussion of the option of creating global consents for two zones within the Twyford area, the unconfined where takes are linked to the Ngaruroro River low flow and the Semi-confined where takes are linked to the Raupare Stream low flow.

Previous Consent Renewals

5. Resource consents expired across the Twyford area in 2009. Assessment of the relationship between surface and groundwater around that time determined that the unconfined and semi-confined aquifers were hydraulically connected to the Ngaruroro River and Raupare Stream. On this basis the consents were managed as part of the surface water regime. The Ngaruroro River and Raupare Stream have allocation limits and minimum flows set in the Regional Resources Management Plan (RRMP). Both allocation limits were fully allocated at that time. As a consequence existing takes were reconsented with a minimum flow and any new takes or increases in take were consented with a higher minimum flow, consistent with Policy 39 of the RRMP. The new and increased takes were issued as “x” permits.

6. There were a number of applicants at that time who knowingly or unknowingly were taking water without consent or in excess of what they were consented to take. These were issued as “x” permits and did not provide the reliability that they had previously experienced.

2012 – 2013 Drought

7. The 2012 – 2013 drought would have been the first year that many in the Twyford area experienced minimum flow restrictions. The Ngaruroro fell below the minimum flow of 2400 m³/s for a total of 61 days. Raupare stream fell below the minimum flow for two days but otherwise remained at or above its minimum flow of 300 L/s. The Twyford-Raupare group trialed a sharing and augmentation strategy during this time and they considered this was effective in preventing the stream from falling below its minimum flow for any significant period.

Current Allocation

8. The current allocation for the semi confined zone is shown in Table 1. The allocation for the Ngaruroro is still to be calculated. The number of consents has reduced since 2010/2011 as some consents have been merged and in some cases surrendered.

Table 1 Twyford Semi-confined zone allocation

Water source	“p” permits (no)	“p” volumes m³/28 days (m³/yr)	“x” permits (no)	“x” volumes m³/28 days (m³/yr)
Raupare	6	131,644 (575,975)	2	8992 (44,638)
Semi-confined	74	1,030,014 (4,076,307)	32	212,836 (824,857)
Totals	80	1,161,658 (4,652,282)	34	221,828 (869,495) <20%

Global Consents

9. TIG have formed a cooperative company who will be the consent holder. As part of the development of the global the formation and management of the cooperative has been important in ensuring existing consent holders can see an easy entry into the global held by the cooperative and an easy exit if required.

10. The proposal is that all the water allocated as “p” water will be brought into a global consent for each of the zones. The full volume held under the global consent will then be managed and distributed by the consent holder amongst group members. “x” permit holders may join (in most cases they also hold “p” permits), but only to share the “p” allocation. None of the “x” water will be available for taking under the global consent.

11. There is no compulsion to join, and as mentioned there is an exit strategy to enable individuals to take out what they brought in if they are not satisfied. Of note is that at this stage no “p” permits have been brought into the global consent. The applicant has explained that there is a need for current consent holders to see and scrutinize the final consent and the relationship with the cooperative company before they will commit to the approach. This is understandable. The proposal is that global consents will initially establish a framework and that water will be transferred in by an additional process.

12. It is considered that there is adequate water for sharing in the manner proposed. Assessment of water used during the 2012-2013 drought indicates that no more than 40% of the combined 28 day volume or the combined annual volume available for abstraction was taken. As Mr Brookes will explain with reliable water the actual use may reduce as irrigators work to a ‘just in time’ approach rather than a ‘just in case’ one. The “x” permits amount to less than 20 percent of the full “p” permit volume in the semi-confined zone.

Additional Provisions

13. In applying for this global consent the applicants have also asked for other provisions. In the semi-confined zone they have applied to take and use some of the allocated water to augment the flow in the Raupare Stream. They propose to take water from one or more bores and discharge it back into the stream at times of near low flow in order to hold the stream above the minimum flow and therefore prevent any bans. In the unconfined groundwater zone they have sought an emergency water allowance that may be taken by the group when the Ngaruroro is at or below the 2400 L/s minimum flow causing a ban on all other abstraction.

Limited Notification

14. Staff have determined that because of the proposal in the unconfined zone to take water below the minimum flow (emergency water) the application for a global consent for the Twyford-Ngaruroro unconfined aquifer should be limited-notified. The application has been notified to DOC, Hawkes Bay Fish and Game Council, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga and to twelve marae. The submission period closes on 23rd January 2015.

15. Staff did not see the need to notify the application for a global consent for the Twyford-Raupare semi-confined aquifer. This is being processed as a non-notified application.

“X” Permit Replacement

16. The “x” permits expire on 31 January 2015. The applications were lodged on October 31st to secure s124 rights. This means they may continue to be exercised until they are replaced, declined or withdrawn. In the meantime these sit on hold at the applicant’s request. The aim is that they won’t be required if the global consent is approved and the group are successful in bringing sufficient “p” permit consent holders into the global consent.

Matters for Consideration

17. The matters for consideration for both these consents include the following:

17.1. Framework for the global consent

17.2. Potential for redistribution of groundwater takes around the zones

17.3. Potential for redistribution of surface water takes

17.4. Augmentation proposal

17.5. Emergency water for the unconfined zone

17.6. Frost protection

17.7. Exit strategy

17.8. “x” permits during transition period

17.9. Raupare Stream enhancement.

Costs

18. The application for the global consents and “x” permits are being processed in accordance with the Resource Management Act and Council Policy. The costs will be charged to the applicants.

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 Environment and Services Committee receives the “Twyford Global Consent Update” report.

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Subject: CHB Wastewater Treatment

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on matters relating to the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council’s (CHBDC) wastewater treatment plants at Waipukurau and Waipawa. The two matters of particular interest are the quality of wastewater produced by the upgraded treatment plants, and also the review of consent conditions which is currently being undertaken.

2. This paper follows a brief verbal presentation by Iain Maxwell to the Maori Committee on 27 October following a presentation by Mr Derek Williams to that committee. In the intervening period Council has received a series of the first monitoring results post the critical date for higher discharge quality and this allows staff to make a more fulsome consideration of what the results are telling us about the plants’ performance.

Background

3. The resource consents regulating the discharge of wastewater from the Waipukurau and Waipawa wastewater treatment plants were issued in December 2006. These consents included two sets of discharge standards.

3.1. The first set of discharge standards applied from the date of issue until 30 September 2014.

3.2. From 1 October 2014 a second set of discharge standards came into force which required wastewater to be treated to a significantly higher standard.

4. Having considered a broad range of treatment options, CHBDC chose to construct floating wetlands to meet the new treatment standards. The wetlands were constructed at Waipawa in July 2013, and installation at Waipukurau was completed in September 2014.

Quality of Wastewater Produced by Upgraded Treatment Plant

5. The conditions of the existing resource consents require CHBDC to sample the discharge from both the Waipukurau and Waipawa treatment plants at 14 day intervals for a range of analytes, and report these results to the Regional Council. The next sample round is due to be taken on 4 December with results due back to HBRC on about 15 December. The results of these samples will be compared against the standards set in the consent, and compliance (or non-compliance) will be assessed. A common approach with discharge permits is to allow for a specified number of exceedances of the standards over a particular period of time, as is the case with these consents.

6. For example, in relation to soluble reactive phosphorus it is stated that over any 12 month period the concentration shall not exceed 0.25 mg/L for more than 50% of the time, nor shall it exceed 0.5 mg/L for more than 10% of the time. Further, the condition goes on to state that the standards will be deemed to have been breached if more than 16 samples taken over any 12 month period have a soluble reactive phosphorus concentration exceeding 0.25 mg/L or more than 5 results have a soluble reactive phosphorus concentration exceeding 0.5 mg/L.

7. The monitoring results for the Waipawa WWTP:

Sample Date	E. Coli Cfu/100ml	cBOD₅ mg/l	TSS mg/l	Amm. N mg/l	SRP mg/l
Upgrade limits	800 up to 16 4000 up to 5	20 up to 16 30 up to 5	30 up to 16 50 up to 5	6 up to 16 10 up to 5	0.25 up to 16 0.5 up to 5
9 Oct 14	3,600	5.9	4.9	6.4	4.05
22 Oct 14	3,700	5.9	11	8.5	2.94
6 Nov 14	34,000	5.9	16	13.9	5.24
20 Nov 14	3,700	3	25	4.9	2.41

Note: The cBOD5 results were reported as less than 6.

8. Waipukurau WWTP sampling results:

Sample Date	E. Coli Cfu/100ml	cBOD₅ mg/l	TSS mg/l	Amm. N mg/l	SRP mg/l
Upgrade limits	800 up to 16 4000 up to 5	20 up to 16 30 up to 5	30 up to 16 50 up to 5	6 up to 16 10 up to 5	0.25 up to 16 0.5 up to 5
9 Oct 14	1900	12	7	31.7	4.23
22 Oct 14	15,800	14	12	39.9	4.94
6 Nov 14	19,000	11	8	37	4.58
20 Nov 14	62,000	12	15	33.4	4.38

9. HBRC has raised serious concerns with CHBDC that the nutrient (Amm.N and SRP) and E. Coli results are exceeding the 90 percentile limits and urgent action is required to rectify the situation. If exceedances of these limits continue to occur CHBDC will breach their consent at the sixth sampling after the upgrade date. This sampling is scheduled for 18 December with results back to HBRC after Christmas.

10. Discharge records provided as required indicate that the treatment plants have not been able to operate at the design capacity and a bypass from the outlet of the treatment pond has been used to balance the inflow and outflow. The discharge of this partially treated wastewater is believed to be the cause of the exceedances.

11. CHBDC has reported that the reason the sand filters have not been able to operate at the design capacity is due to tannin in the wastewater reacting with the alum coagulant and binding the sand in the beds of the sandfilters, triggering an overload shut down.

12. CHBDC is working on overcoming this problem, however the addition of hydrogen peroxide to treat the tannins prior to the alum dosing has not been successful. CHBDC isnow trailing a change to sodium hypochlorite to treat tannins and to ferric chloride in place of alum to remove the phosphorus. This trial was commissioned in late November, which was too late to be assessed against the last reported sampling run shown in this paper.

13. HBRC has also strongly recommended that CHBDC engage additional external expertise to address the issues and that the source of the tannin be urgently investigated and then adequately managed.

Review of Consent Conditions

14. In accordance with s 128 of the RMA, conditions of resource consents can be reviewed for any of the purposes stated in the consent, at the frequency specified in the consent. The CHB consents allow a review to be undertaken annually during the month of September, and one of four reasons for a review specified is to modify any aspect of monitoring, including sampling frequency, sampling method, analytical method, reporting method and tests required.

15. Section 128 of the RMA also allows a council to review a consent at any time to align consents with an operative regional plan, which is relevant in this case due to Plan Change 6.

16. A review of the consent conditions was initiated in September. Given the change in the treatment process that has recently occurred it was necessary to review the consents, particularly the monitoring requirements, to ensure that they are appropriately tailored to the new treatment process. At the time the resource consents were granted in 2006 it was not known what type of treatment was going to be put in place to achieve compliance with the higher treatment standards. As a result, it was anticipated that this review would be done once the final treatment process was known.

17. The main issues that have been covered in the review are:

17.1. Bypass flows and flow measurements- At both wastewater treatment plants there are three routes by which wastewater can be discharged. Currently only the total of these routes is required to be measured by the consent conditions. Although the frequency of 'bypass' flows should decrease over time, it is important that the discharge volumes of each of the possible component flows are measured.

17.2. Bypass Sampling - The quality of the final wastewater flow discharged from each plant is being sampled. When a bypass flow is activated, it is important that it is also sampled so that the impact of that flow on the quality of the final discharge can be understood. There has also been some issues with the locations at which samples have previously been taken, and more appropriate locations have been discussed and agreed by regional and district council staff, and need to be reflected in the conditions of consent.

17.3. Sampling - Given the change in the nature of the treatment process, it is necessary to change some of the analytes that need to be sampled for, both in the wastewater itself, and in the receiving environment. It is also important that sampling requirements are updated to ensure that compliance of the discharges against Plan Change 6 can be assessed.

17.4. Ecological monitoring - a more robust process allowing for improved statistical evaluation of results has been included.

Process Going Forward

18. It is important to understand that HBRC’s role in this process is to ensure that CHBDC meets the required standard of discharge. HBRC did not have any role in the final selection of the wastewater treatment option or its design.

19. If the plans continue to be operated in a manner that does not meet the required standards and/or HBRC is not satisfied that CHBDC has a clear plan and is resourcing it to address the obvious plant short comings, then enforcement action of some type may be required early 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 “CHB Wastewater Treatment” report.

Charlotte Drury

Principal Consents Officer

Simon Moffitt

Environmental Officer, Compliance

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Subject: Long term & integrated view of the Hawke's Bay Hill Country

Reason for Report

1. This report outlines the drivers and principles behind the approach proposed by the Land Management Team to confront the challenge of realising the long term sustainability of land use in Hawkes Bay hill country.

2. On 13 August 2014 the Land Management team presented their 2014-15 Operational Plan to the Environment and Services Committee. This included a proposal to progress a long term vision of hill country sustainability.

3. This paper sets out several significant proposals that give effect to the vision. To be effective in Hawke’s Bay staff propose that a wider project, the East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal, be promoted and lead by HBRC.

4. Three presentations will accompany this briefing paper. These presentations will:

4.1. Outline the work that has been completed by HBRC land management and land science staff in collaboration with AgResearch to quantify the loss of ecosystem services in the April 2011 storm event. This work quantifies the impact of soil loss and the benefit of erosion protection on the provision of ecosystem services from hill country

4.2. Overview the SedNet modelling work for the Tukituki Catchment and its ability to target the loss of sediment to a greater degree than possible in the past

4.3. Outline the key principles of the East Coast Hill Country Resilience proposal.

Background

5. The sustainable use of hill country faces a greater range of challenges compared to other landscapes. This is due to a variety of factors including the diverse range of farm systems in hill country and the opportunity within those systems to adapt to change rapidly given they generally operate in an environment with:

5.1. More challenging terrain

5.2. Typically lower per hectare incomes

5.3. Greater susceptibility to adverse weather events

5.4. Larger property sizes

5.5. Significant social challenges including isolation, Poor connectivity and dwindling availability of services

5.6. An ageing landowner population with challenges associated with farm succession planning and land capital values

5.7. A fragmented industry.

6. Hill Country is one of the key drivers of the regional economy with significant opportunity for growth and diversification and perhaps the greatest challenge to realising sustainable land use in the region. This challenge will be further compounded in the future through:

6.1. Significant uncertainty and volatility associated with climate change

6.2. Meeting water quality targets including reduced sediment runoff

6.3. Greater expectations on farmers for the provision of stewardship for biodiversity assets and ecosystem services

6.4. Industry and Central Government imperatives around primary growth and market demands

6.5. The need to remain a profitable and viable business enterprise.

7. The impact of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) on land use and the need to set water quantity and quality limits for all catchments in the region is highlighting the complexity and uncertainty that exists in finding viable solutions to addressing the rates of soil loss from East Coast hill country, which are some of the highest in the world.

8. The current approach taken to managing hill country erosion has not changed markedly over the last 15 years nor does the approach differ significantly from that promoted across the country. Staff believe that this approach needs to change if the vision for sustainable hill country land use is to be achieved.

Regional Context

9. There is a long history of soil conservation programmes and works in Hawke’s Bay that have had a significant effect on reducing the impacts of the large storm related erosional events the region is susceptible to, and yet large tracts of hill country land remain largely unprotected.

10. HBRC through the Regional Land Care Scheme (RLS) initiative has invested over $8 million on-ground including the planting of approx. 500,000 poles, protecting an estimated 12,500ha of hill country over the last 12 years. This investment has put in place erosion protection on approximately 8% of the highly erodible hill country in the region, but at the current rate it will take another 150 years to cover the region.

11. A number of initiatives to address this challenge have been developed nationally in the past including the Central Government’s Afforestation Grants Scheme. Under this scheme $1.6 million was invested in HB effectively covering 730 ha of highly erodible hill country. In addition HBRC has participated for the last 5 years in the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) supported Hill Country Erosion Project centred on Wairoa. These schemes continue the approach of investing large amounts of money that have significant impacts on reducing erosion but benefit only a relatively small proportion of the highly erodible landscape.

12. The amount of RLS resource available for investment in hill country erosion has reduced from a high of approximately $500,000 in the mid 2000’s, to the current annual budget for hill country oriented programmes of approximately $270,000. There are multiple reasons for this decline including, the variable demand for grant funding from land owners, the promotion of environmental and biodiversity enhancement programmes and more recently the demand on RLS resource to meet the wider programmes and processes associated with the implementation of the NPSFM and in particular PC6.

13. Nationally there has been a historical correlation between the amount and accessibility of funding available for broad scale planting programmes and the occurrence of severe storm events. For example the Horizons Regional Council’s “Sustainable Land Use Initiative” which was a result of the February 2004 storm event and included securing over $10 million of Central and Regional Government funding. These events received extensive media coverage and political traction with their funding bodies due to the magnitude of the storms costs in terms of damage caused and impacts of downstream effects on those not directly involved in farming. They did stimulate high degrees of cross collaboration in developing programmes and processes to address challenges. Unfortunately in most cases these programmes occur after the fact once significant degradation has already occurred. It is likely that future funding for storm event recovery and prevention will be limited.

14. The impact of significant storm events on the regional economy will be demonstrated through the presentation on ecosystem services lost in the April 2011 storm event.

15. There is significant imperative now for a new, broader and longer term re-evaluation of the future of hill country land use and HBRC’s role in that. In that light HBRC staff have recently been involved in a number of projects and propose a range of new initiatives that help shape that future and broaden our understanding of the role of HBRC in that space.

Future Direction

16. There are no obvious solutions or easy answers to addressing the challenge of realising sustainable land use in hill country given the complexity of issues. Change takes significant time to occur in the hill country landscape and the drivers of that change need to consider not only the immediate challenges to be addressed but also the broader context and longer term needs of the landholders, communities and landscape for meeting an uncertain future. This requires an approach that is adaptable, works across organisational and political boundaries and takes a broad long term policy view that is intimately linked to the reality of programmes required to give its effect. Many of the features required to confront this challenge are incorporated within a resilience thinking approach to planning and programme development.

17. The principles behind the proposed approach being developed by the Land Management Team need to consider the realities of available resourcing and the demands of PC6 implementation on current staff and programmes. Critically it is also essential to recognise that the land management team are only one of a number of key influencers on hill country land user decision making.

18. The principles that underpin this proposed approach include:

18.1. The close alignment and integration with Land Science, Policy and Planning and Economic Development Groups within HBRC to ensure consistency and opportunity for synergies and efficiencies are realised.

18.2. The critical need to work collaboratively with all stakeholders that influence decision making in the hill country landscape, including central, regional and local government, the primary sector, Iwi, research organisations and the landholders themselves.

18.3. The need to consider the hill country challenge from a variety of scales. This includes building up from the more traditional RLS funded paddock scale projects as the sole approach to the need to also consider the potential for collaborative and collective approaches to governance, policy setting and programme development along the East Coast of the North Island through the East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal (ECHCRP).

18.4. The need to move the Land Management Team’s role more towards that of brokers of outcomes rather than purchasers. With greater emphasis on building the capacity of hill country landholders and communities to manage their specific issues into the future through targeted and tailored capacity building programmes and greater emphasis on delivery of these programmes through an integrated catchment management & community engagement oriented approach.

18.5. The ability to better target and monitor HBRC investment on-ground in hill country through the work being developed by the Land Science Team. This work enables the identification critical source areas for sediment loss in the Tukituki through SedNET modelling at a resolution not available in the past. It offers the opportunity to better target tributaries and specific farm properties with grants and capacity building programmes enabling the potential for improving resource efficiency and effectiveness while realising greater outcomes. The presentation on SedNet modelling will illustrate the benefits of this technology and approach.

18.6. Increasingly Land Management Team programmes are being aligned with HBRC’s focus on specific catchment planning and implementation. There are obvious synergies and efficiencies in taking this approach including; capitalising on the large amount of information gathering and monitoring that goes into plan changes, and increased stakeholder awareness and engagement in these catchments and logistical benefits to staff time and resource use through piggy backing on other initiatives. While sediment loss is an issue for the lower Mohaka River catchment which is currently subject to a policy development process, the three remaining areas of the region (Porangahau and Southern Coastal Catchments, Esk to Waikare catchments, and the catchments to the north of the Mohaka) all have a high proportion of erodible hill country with significant sediment loss impacting on water quality and ecosystems. These areas are programmed for policy development in the latter half of the 10 year Long Term Plan period.

18.7. The need to take and develop a tool box approach to providing on-farm solutions, that incorporates a range of options for landholders to consider rather than just a narrowly defined, broad scale approach that suits some but not all.

Next steps (how we are putting this into place)

19. The Land Management Team is currently building a proposal for the next round of MPI’s Hill Country Erosion Funding for the next 4 years based on the principles above.

20. The Land Management Team is currently working with external consultants to develop methodologies for identifying community capacity needs and quantifying the impact of HBRC programmes on building capacity and social capital through a monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework.

21. The development of the East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal in collaboration with the Policy and Planning Group. This has been included in Council LTP considerations for the next 10 years, and could play a significant role in developing the broader, longer term collaboration required to realise significant benefits in programmes and processes in the hill country landscape.

22. A symposium and workshop for key stakeholders to consider the long term future of hill country land use along the East Coast is being considered for June/July next year and could provide significant opportunity to launch the East Coast Hill Country Resilience Proposal.

23. Continuing to support the co-investment with Land Science in improving the spatial resolution of our soil mapping and sediment modelling.

Decision Making Process

24. 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 Long Term & Integrated View of the Hawke’s Bay Hill Country report.

Nathan Heath

Team Leader – Non Regulatory Strategy & Implementation

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 30 November 2014)

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 30 November 2014)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
23 October 2014	HDC	1	Resource Consent Application Consent is sought to subdivide part of the property at 996 State Highway 2, Whirinaki into 15 residential sites.	Applicant The Evans Family Trust Agent Cardno	Notified	30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Monday 24th November 2014 · A submission was lodged opposing the application. A copy of the submission can be found at HBRC Submissions · HBRC opposed the application principally because the application site is in an area that has been determined as inappropriate for development in both the RPS and the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. The subject site is also in an area indicated as at risk from Tsunami risk and the application does not appear to consider the potential effects arising from this. · No further information is available at this time.
18 July 2014	HDC	2	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, HDC hearing pending	30 November 2014 · Submissions closed Wednesday 20^th August 2014. · A submission was lodged supporting the Notice of Requirement and in support of the supporting submission lodged by the Regional Transport Committee. Both submissions can be found at HBRC Submissions · Hearings have been postponed and are now expected to commence in early February 2015. · Details of the application can be found here Notice of Requirement
5 December 2013	NCC	3	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, NCC hearing pending	30 November 2014 · Submissions closed on Friday 14 February 2014. The HBRC submission can be found at HBRC Submissions · Details of Hearings timetables are yet to be publicised by Napier City Council.
8 November 2013	HDC	4	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, HDC hearings in progress	30 November 2014 · HDC have commenced hearings on topic by topic basis. HDC’s hearings programme scheduled to run through remainder of 2014 into early 2015. · 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
1 August 2013	NA	5	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, High Court hearing pending	30 November 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. Submissions were also made by the Crown and Gisborne District Council, both seeking clearer specificity of the scope and nature of the orders being applied for. · On 26 Sept 2014, the High Court released a timetable for the provision of evidence by the applicant and other interested parties. The filing of evidence is expected to be complete by early 2015. No High Court hearing date has been set yet.

[1] Activities generally include seismic surveys, sampling, aeromagnetic surveys, geological mapping, geochemical surveys, geophysical surveys, compiling reports and analysing data, and exploratory drilling (which is not the same as petroleum production).

[2] Activities can also occur if they can comply with a relevant National Environmental Standard, but in this case there are none likely to apply. The Resource Management (Marine Pollution) Regulations 1998 may also apply to ships and offshore installations in the coastal marine area.

[3] This summary is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all possible consent requirements, nor details of every rule and associated conditions. The purpose is to provide an outline of the likely consents required based on HBRC’s understanding of exploration activities. Final consent requirements will be determined once applications are lodged.

[4] Table 1 is an indicative summary of regional rules applicable to offshore exploration within the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area (i.e. between mean high water springs and the 12 nautical mile limit). Rules in the HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan would apply to any offshore exploration activities in the Hawke's Bay coastal marine area. The proposed Offshore Pegasus Block Offer 2015 area appears to be largely beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

[5] Letters in square brackets refers to classification of activity in each rule as follows: [P] permitted; [C] controlled; [RD] restricted discretionary; [D] discretionary; [NC] non-complying; and [Pr] prohibited.

[6] See, inter alia, Chapter 6 of HB Regional Coastal Environment Plan - explanations and reasons for objectives and policies.

	Follow-up/Request	Person Responsible	Status/Comment
1	Circulate 2006 report on Open Spaces to TLAs	M Adye	Hawke’s Bay Rural Open Space Study report attached under separate cover to 10 December E&S agenda.
2	Provide CHB wastewater discharge monitoring programme details to Councillors	I Maxwell	Report to 10 December E&S Committee meeting

1	Follow up items from 8 October 2014 meeting
2	Hawke's Bay Rural Open Spaces Study		Under Separate Cover

1	Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 30 November 2014)
2	Statutory Advocacy Map

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.