Agenda of Maori Committee - 16 December 2014

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Maori Committee

Date: Tuesday 16 December 2014

Time: 10.15am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Short Term Replacements 3

4. Confirmation of Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 28 October 2014

5. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Maori Committee held on 28 October 2014

6. Follow Ups from Previous Maori Committee Meetings 5

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

Information or Performance Monitoring

8. Update on Current Issues by the HBRC Chairman

9. Biodiversity Strategy Report 9

10. Statutory Ahuriri Estuary Committee Verbal Report from Mana Ahuriri

11. Recreational Water Quality Report: Review of the 2013-14 Season 13

12. Twyford Global Consent Update 15

13. Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project 19

14. Wairoa Drain Spraying 27

15. Statutory Advocacy Update 29

16. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 35

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 December 2014

SUBJECT: Biodiversity Strategy Report

Maori Committee at its meeting on 28 October 2014 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 16 December 2014.

Reason for Report

1. This report updates the Māori Committee on progress on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy.

2. The Strategy is currently in draft form and public consultation is underway.

Regional Context

3. The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LWMS) 2011 indicated that Council would lead the development of a regional biodiversity strategy. LWMS noted the need for:

3.1. Improved understanding of the ecological services provided by indigenous vegetation and wetlands

3.2. Re-establishment of ecological processes and ecosystems

3.3. Greater variety and diversity of habitats that sustain our most valued species.

4. The LWMS was launched at a public symposium in November 2011. During a symposium workshop, all participants agreed that improving biodiversity required better coordination of biodiversity management activities, particularly among the major agencies with key biodiversity roles. A recurring message was that “we need to work better together”.

5. In the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan, Council allocated funding of $103,000 to develop the Biodiversity Strategy.

National Context

6. Resource Management Act 1991. A range of statutory responsibilities in relation to biodiversity, e.g. s6(c): regional councils to recognise and provide for ‘The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna’.

7. New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2000: “halting decline in New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity by 2020”.

8. The Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Indigenous Biodiversity on Private Land 2007 informs Council (and others) in managing biodiversity on private land. It contains four priorities:

8.1. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments less than 20 per cent remaining in indigenous cover

8.2. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands

8.3. Protect indigenous vegetation associated with ‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystems

8.4. Protect habitats of acutely and chronically threatened indigenous species.

9. The Proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. If the NPS comes in to effect in its current form, regional councils would be required to: identify areas of significant biodiversity within five years / ensure there is no net loss of significant indigenous biodiversity. The Government intends to consider the report from the Waitangi Tribunal on claim 262 before finalising the NPS.

Strategy Development Process

10. The Strategy is being developed by the major groups and agencies involved in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.

11. HBRC has initiated and facilitated the strategy development via a stakeholder group process. Two stakeholder groups have been used: a Core Working Group to work through technical matters; and a Steering Group to review progress, provide feedback and steer the strategy direction. The Steering Group ultimately makes the decisions as to the Strategy content.

12. The Core Working Group involves Council staff, Department of Conservation, Fish and Game, Federated Farmers, HB Forestry Group, QEII, Nga Whenua Rahui, and Te Roopu Kaitiaki Cultural Advisors.

13. The Steering Group involves the Core Working Group plus HDC, NCC, WDC, CHBDC, Forest and Bird, TBfreeNZ, DairyNZ, Ministry for Primary Industries, HB Fruitgrowers, Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc., Mana Ahuriri Inc., and Plant Hawke’s Bay. Councillors Belford and Pipe are on the Steering Group.

14. The two groups have held regular meetings since late 2012.

15. The Steering Group approved the draft strategy for public consultation. This consultation process has begun with four community workshops held 1-3 December 2014.

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (Draft)

16. The strategy is a non-statutory document aimed at improving the effectiveness of biodiversity management among the major parties involved in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay through alignment of programmes and resources. It is not a Regional Council strategy but a community strategy.

17. This is the first time in Hawke’s Bay’s history that all the agencies involved in biodiversity have agreed to work together to look for improvements in processes and programmes.

18. The Strategy contains an agreed Vision and short and long term Objectives for:

18.1. Improving native species and habitats (and the ecosystem services they provide)

18.2. Integrating Māori values

18.3. Improving partnerships and community involvement

19. The Structure of the Strategy is:

19.1. “What?” - Executive Summary

19.2. “Why?” – International and national context

19.3. “Where are we now?” – The current situation in Hawke’s Bay (based on the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Inventory presented to this Committee 13 August 2014) and the ongoing threats to habitats and species

19.4. “How” – are we going to improve things? Objectives, Actions and Outputs:

19.4.1. Work together more effectively

19.4.2. IdentifyàPrioritiseàStabiliseàEnhanceà Native Habitats and Species are Healthy and Functioning

19.4.3. Integrate Mātauranga Māori into biodiversity programmes through a cultural framework; Identify and prioritise taonga species and significant biodiversity sites.

19.4.4. Formalise commitment to the strategy intent through a Biodiversity Accord (2015)

19.4.5. Develop an Implementation plan (2015), that sets out prioritisation criteria and Identifies specific actions and resources required

19.4.6. Biodiversity Trust will seek to attract new funding opportunities, i.e. over and above that currently available (blue sky opportunities) and allocate funding to priority projects (as determined in implementation plan)

19.4.7. Biodiversity Forum will be community-based, so anyone can join, and will review progress towards achieving the objectives with the intention of aligning agency programmes with community programmes where feasible.

Community Engagement

20. The draft strategy (distributed to all Maori Committee members) is available on the HBRC website or a printed copy available upon request and is currently being consulted on with the public. The draft has been discussed at workshops held in Wairoa, Central Hawke’s Bay Napier, and Havelock North on 1, 2 and 3 December 2014.

21. Comments are officially scheduled to close 17 December, however any comments received before 31 December will be considered.

Next Steps

22. Comments from the workshops and additional comments received will be considered by the Steering Group in early 2015 and the Strategy finalised.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the “Biodiversity Strategy” report.

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 December 2014

SUBJECT: Recreational Water Quality Report: Review of the 2013-14 Season

Reason for Report

1. This report has been prepared to update the Committee on the results of the Hawke’s Bay Recreational Water Quality Monitoring programme 2013-14. This includes alterations to the Suitability for Recreation Grades (SFRGs) at some sites, based on water quality results, and/or changes to the catchment based risk assessments.

2. Information is also provided on follow-up investigations and studies for specific sites.

Background

3. Hawke’s Bay’s coastal waters, freshwater lakes and rivers are frequently used for a range of recreational activities including fishing, boating and swimming. However, the suitability of these areas for contact recreation can be compromised through contamination by human and animal faecal matter, which may carry harmful, illness-causing pathogens.

4. In conjunction with the Public Health Unit of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and local authorities, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council undertakes weekly monitoring of popular recreational areas, and communicates these results through the HBRC B4U Swim web page and the B4U Swim phone line.

5. The results are used to:

5.1. Communicate to the general public the level of risk associated with contact recreation at specific sites on a weekly basis during the season;

5.2. Assess trends in water quality through annual review reporting (this document) and 5-yearly state of the environment monitoring; and

5.3. Identify areas that may require further investigation to determine sources of faecal contamination and hence poor water quality, to guide management actions.

6. Results of the current season show:

6.1. That marine sites typically have very high water quality suitable for contact recreation most, if not all, of the time

6.2. Freshwater sites have more variable water quality and are more influenced by surface flow resulting from rainfall

6.3. Lagoon water bodies can have high levels of faecal bacteria (poor water quality for recreation). This can be due to their natural form (shallow, low flow, warmer temperatures) and associated bird life.

7. Improvements in recreational water quality were observed at; Kairakau Lagoon, Puhokio Stream, Te Mahia Estuary and Waipatiki Lagoon.

8. Declines in recreational water quality were observed at; Porangahau Estuary, Tukituki at SH2 Bridge and Waipuka Stream at Ocean Beach.

9. The recommended follow-up action from the 2013-14 report is to:

9.1. Undertake faecal source tracking (determining what kind of animal the bacteria comes from) for Mahia Peninsula sites, Clive River, Maraetotara Lagoon, Tukituki at Blackbridge and SH2, Porangahau Estuary and Puhokio Lagoon.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the “Hawke’s Bay Recreational Water Quality Report: Review of the 2013-14 Season” report.

Shane Gilmer

Resource Technician WQ&E

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

Recreational Water Quality Review of the 2013-14 Season

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 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 Maori 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

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 December 2014

Subject: Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update on the Te Matau A Maui project, to be undertaken over a 5 year period at a total cost of $6.1 million, including a $1.5million contribution from HBRC.

Background

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

The Project

5. 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.

6. The maps attached as Attachment 1 shows the areas involved in the projects.

7. There are five work streams:

7.1. Pest management

7.2. Habitat restoration / enhancement

7.3. Research and monitoring

7.4. Community engagement/education

7.5. Species restoration

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

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

Research and monitoring

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

Community engagement / Education

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Maori Committee receives the Te Matau a Maui - Cape to City Project report.

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	Te Matau A Maui Overview Draft	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 December 2014

Subject: Wairoa Drain Spraying

Reason for Report

1. Wairoa is reliant on the viability of its pastoral and horticultural farmers. There are many drains that service highly productive farmland and the urban area, and it is essential that the maintenance of drains servicing their properties continues cost effectively, i.e. value for rates.

2. A petition signed by approx. 890 residents in Wairoa requesting that HBRC desist from spraying drains in the Wairoa district was presented to Council at their meeting on 29 October 2014.

3. It appears that the concerns of those that signed the petition are based, at least in part, on a lack of information about:

3.1. Why it is important to maintain channels free of weed build ups

3.2. The impacts of spraying

3.3. The cost of alternatives.

Weed clearance & Flood control

4. Spraying in waterways is done for different purposes.

4.1. Drain spraying is done to control the build-up of weeds in the base of drains. This involves spraying narrow swathe of vegetation along the base of drains. Weeds can grow very rapidly in this environment and, in a significant rain event, weed clumps break off and have the potential to cause flooding as they block culverts.

4.2. Also flood levels increase if the channel capacity is compromised through weed build up. There are many properties in Wairoa – particularly the North Clyde area that are susceptible to flooding, and if drains are not free of weeds the flood risk to them is increased.

4.3. In other waterways, spraying is done to control willow regrowth and noxious plants. This spraying is targeted specifically at the unwanted vegetation.

Spray-Free Zones in Wairoa

5. HBRC avoids spraying waterway banks. It is important to maintain healthy grass cover on the banks, as this holds the soil and significantly reduces erosion.

6. There seems to be a misconception among some who have signed the petition received by Council in October that HBRC sprays parts of the Wairoa river banks. This is not the case. HBRC do no spraying along the Wairoa River.

7. The lower reaches of the Awatere Stream have been identified as important for white bait spawning. This part of the stream has been fenced off to prevent cattle entering the water and no spraying is undertaken.

Low Toxic Spray Used

8. HBRC use Green Glyphosate 510 for spraying drains. All registered herbicides, and many common household substances, are measured for their potential toxicity to human health. For example, substances such as coffee, table salt, alcohol, sugar and vinegar all have widely accepted toxicology values attributed to them, as do all registered herbicides.

9. The most common form of measurement to determine toxicity values is known as LD50, or simply what is the lethal dose if ingested will cause half of the subject population to perish. This measurement is expressed in milligrams of material per kilogram of subject bodyweight that will cause 50% of the subjects to be overcome. Therefore higher values of the LD 50 equates to larger amounts of material will be required before the subjects can be expected to perish (ie, large values equates to low toxicity).

10. For example, the following accepted data shows the toxicity values of common household products in relation to Glyphosate:

	Low Toxicity		High Toxicity
Sugar	29,700
Green Glyphosate 510	10,000
Table salt		3000
Alcohol		2080
Caffeine			192
Sarin nerve agent			24

11. It is widely accepted that substances with ratings of 10,000 or greater are basically considered as non-toxic. Therefore the environmentally rated Green Glyphosate 510 is a strong performer in being one of the least toxic herbicides available in New Zealand.

Mechanical Clearance

12. It has been suggested that mechanical cleaning of drains is a better alternative than spraying. However mechanical cleaning can be as much as 15 times more expensive than spraying so there would need to be a significant increase in rates to fund mechanical cleaning if the current level of flood protection is to be maintained.

13. Mechanical cleaning is also very damaging to aquatic life.

14. While it may be a viable alternative in some drains, it is not a viable alternative to the current approach.

Ongoing Discussion

15. HBRC, Fish and Game and Department of Conservation staff have met to discuss the issue of the Wairoa drain spraying. During 2015, further meetings will be held to review the potential biodiversity values of waterways that are maintained by HBRC and determine how best to enhance those values while maintaining efficient drainage and flood capacity.

16. Wairoa Taiwhenua are also keen to be involved in the issue, and HBRC staff will be meeting with them early in 2015.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the Wairoa Drain Spraying report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Maori Committee

Tuesday 16 December 2014

SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 30 September and 30 November 2014.

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

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

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

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

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

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

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

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

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That the Maori Committee receives the December 2014 Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Statutory Advocacy Update
2	Statutory Advocacy Map

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update (as at 30 September 2014)

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
18 July 2014	HDC	1	Notice of Requirement A Notice of Requirement for the Whakatu Arterial Link project to provide a road between Havelock North, State Highway 2 North, Pakowhai Road, the Expressway and the Port of Napier.	HDC	Notified, HDC hearing pending	30 September 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 are expected to commence in late 2014. · Details of the application can be found here Notice of Requirement
5 December 2013	NCC	2	Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan. A community driven Plan Change to harmonise district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan, incorporate the Ahuriri Subdistrict Plan and update provisions as a result of recent Napier City Council policy changes and decisions into the Napier District Plan.	NCC	Notified, NCC hearing pending	30 September 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	3	Proposed Hastings District Plan Review of the Hastings District Plan in its entirety. Includes the harmonisation of district wide provisions between the Napier District Plan with the Hastings District Plan where relevant.	HDC	Notified, HDC hearings in progress	30 September 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	4	Application under Coastal and Marine (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 Rongomaiwahine has made an application for a Protected Customary Rights Order and a Customary Marine Title Order in the general Mahia Peninsular area under section 100 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.	Rongomaiwahine (Pauline Tangiora)	Notified, High Court hearing pending	30 September 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. · 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.

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