Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

Reason for Report

1. HBRC owns and administers approximately $145m of assets on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay community, for the protection of parts of the region against frequent flooding, to enable landowners to maximise productivity from their land and reduce the potential for community disruption resulting from flooding.

2. By their very nature these assets are at risk of damage in a major flood, and susceptible to damage from other natural hazard events. This document sets out how HBRC will mitigate the financial risk of disaster damage to infrastructure assets that it owns and administers on behalf of the Hawke’s Bay community.

3. Following a major disaster it is expected that there will be some assistance from central government, however the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan 2006 states that:

3.1. initial and primary responsibility for recovery rests with the local community

3.2. risk management and its associated costs should be carried by the local authorities that benefit and are best able to manage or mitigate the risk

3.3. local authorities have a responsibility to the extent possible to insure against and attempt to minimise or mitigate risk in advance of any event.

4. Central government funding is dependent on HBRC being able to demonstrate these requirements have been met.

5. The purpose of this report reviews how HBRC mitigates the financial risk of damage to its infrastructure assets, and recommends that HBRC retain membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) for its ongoing mitigation of financial risk.

Current situation

6. HBRC currently mitigates its financial risk through self insurance, commercial insurance, and through the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP). This is outlined in a report “Disaster Damage Risk Management Review” August 2001. This was further reviewed in 2006/07 and is documented in a series of Council briefing papers.

7. Current insurance markets are challenging and are expected to remain so for the next 3 to 5 years. The primary driver has been the Christchurch earthquake events of September 2010, December 2010, February 2011 and June 2011 which resulted in major change in how New Zealand is viewed by the global insurance markets. In 2011 Australia and NZ contributed just 2% to the global reinsurance fund but were responsible for 20% of the reinsurance payout. The global insurance industry has also been impacted by floods in Thailand, earthquakes in Haiti and Chile and tsunami in Japan and Chile.

8. Prior to the beginning of the 2011/12 financial year the annual commercial insurance premium and annual LAPP contribution providing cover for HBRC infrastructure assets totalled approximately $130,000 annually. This increased to $420,000 in the 2011/12 financial year. As a result of a change to the LAPP contribution, this has reduced to approximately $340,000 in the current financial year. There has however been an increase in the deductible that will apply to each claim.

HBRC Infrastructure Assets

9. HBRC owns or administers on behalf of the regional ratepayers infrastructure with a replacement value of $146,200,000.

10. These assets include:

10.1. 245 kilometres of stopbank

10.2. 540 kilometres of drains

10.3. 1637 groynes constructed from concrete units, wire rope and railway iron, or rock

10.4. 11 flood detention dams

10.5. 21 pumping stations.

11. These assets are administered under 22 separate flood control and drainage schemes which provide protection against frequent flooding and drainage outlets to some of the most productive land in the Hawke’s Bay Region, as well as to the urban centres of Napier, Hastings, Waipukurau and Waipawa, and other settlements throughout the region.

12. The Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers is the largest of the Schemes with assets with a replacement value of $58,000,000, an annual maintenance budget of approx $1,450,000, and an annual capital budget of approximately $1,170,000, ($670,000 being capital loan repayments).

13. A major flooding event in any part of the region, and particularly the Heretaunga Plains could cause widespread devastation, economic losses and significant community disruption. The economic impact losses of 3 possible stopbank breach scenarios have been modelled. The direct industry production losses for these scenarios were:

13.1. Roys Hill $468m

13.2. Taradale $356m

13.3. Moteo $24m.

14. Regional impact modelling of these figures estimates total Hawke’s Bay-wide GDP/Value added economic impact losses, including flow-on multiplier impacts of $526m, $317m and $32m respectively. (Source: Upgrading of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Economic Perspective – October 2010 – Economic Solutions Ltd.)

15. Scheme assets are in many cases high risk sacrificial assets (e.g. live tree edge protection, and groynes constructed of wire rope and rail and concrete units) and are exposed to damage in any significant flood event. While the Schemes are all designed to contain floods up to their design capacity, the assets may suffer damage in flood events. In fact they are designed with the expectation that they will incur some damage.

16. However there is a much greater risk of damage occurring to scheme assets in events that exceed their design capacity. Events which exceed the design capacity of any scheme, and particularly the larger schemes, i.e. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme and the Upper Tukituki Scheme, are likely to result in extensive community disruption and have a significant impact on the region’s economy.

17. The Asset Management Plans set out the “Level of Service” provided by the schemes to the regional or local community. The Level of Service defines the standards to which the schemes are designed and maintained and amongst other things sets out the level of protection that is provided to the community. Following a disaster the same level of service would be expected to be reinstated.

Natural Hazard Risks

18. The Hawke’s Bay Region is at risk from a range of natural hazard events which have the potential to damage HBRC’s infrastructure assets and severely impact on the regional community and economy.

19. Figure 1 provides a comparison of risk between a range of natural hazard events to which the region is exposed.

20. Significant flood, earthquake and tsunami events all have estimated return periods of less than 1 in 1000 years. While the likelihood of a major event occurring that results in significant damage to the Upper Tukituki or Heretaunga Plains Scheme during the next 50 years is low, the consequences of such an event occurring would be significant.

Risk = likelihood of occurrence x consequence

21. Therefore the risk to the region of such an event may be high. Table 31 sets out the risk to Hawke’s Bay of natural hazard risks.

22. In considering the mitigation of risks to HBRC owned and administered infrastructure it is important to put this risk into the context of how the region will be impacted by such an event, and how this would impact on HBRC’s ability to repair or reinstate infrastructure that is damaged, and to fund that work.

23. Table 1 sets out the types of damage that could occur to HBRC owned infrastructure assets as a result of significant natural hazard event.

Table 1

Disaster type	Type of possible damage
Earthquake	· Slumping of stopbanks and drain sides · Liquefaction resulting in siltation of waterways · Ground movement impacting on drain grades · Ground movement reducing capacity of river flood channels · Structural damage to pump stations and other structures
Flood	· Damage to edge protection (live trees and groyne structures) · Lateral scour of river resulting in loss of berm land, edge protection works and possibly stopbanks. · Extensive siltation and sediment deposition impacting on flood capacity · Damage to environmental planting and other works · Stopbank failure with extensive scour in vicinity of failure · Siltation of drainage channels, culverts and pump inlets · Damage to pathways · Debris deposits throughout the Scheme areas
Tsunami	· Damage to stopbanks and river protection works in lower sections of rivers · Damage to East Clive sea exclusion bank, coastal groynes, and drainage channels and pump stations close to coast · Debris deposits in waterways
Volcanic ash fallout	· Build up of sediment in drainage channels · Abrasion of pumps

24. In addition to damage to HBRC owned infrastructure assets and their associated Schemes, there will be an expectation from the Hawke’s Bay public that HBRC will respond to issues associated with waterways throughout Hawke’s Bay.

Role of Central Government

25. Following a significant disaster central government can be expected to provide financial assistance to enable the community to recover, provided HBRC has appropriate risk mitigation provisions in place. The principles for central government financial support are set out in the Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. These apply whether or not a State of Civil Emergency is declared. The principles relevant to infrastructure assets managed by HBRC are:

25.1. The purpose of emergency recovery is to restore the affected community to a position in which normal social and economic activity may be resumed as quickly as possible. To achieve this, it is essential to have proper planning for risk management. The government considers local risks to be a local responsibility. Local authorities are primarily responsible for dealing with the impact of an emergency in their geographical and functional areas of responsibility. Government assistance is contingent upon that expectation.

25.2. The aim of any government assistance is to provide the minimum level of assistance required to restore to the community the capacity for self-help and to provide solutions that are the most appropriate long-term solutions. This does not imply an obligation to restore a community to a better state than existed before the emergency, and nor is there an obligation to restore to previous levels if those are not sustainable in the longer term. Upgrading of facilities to a level greater than existed previously may be considered as special policy in cases where such upgrading would decrease the likelihood of a recurrence of the civil defence emergency. Wherever possible, government assistance will be provided in accordance with existing departmental policies.

25.3. Specific principles for recovery assistance are:

25.3.1. government has a role in the recovery process after a significant civil defence emergency; and

25.3.2. any government response programme should be designed to restore the community capacity for self-help and be consistent with any government policies regarding mitigation and alleviation measures; and

25.3.3. initial and primary responsibility for recovery rests with the local community; and

25.3.4. risk management and its associated costs should be carried by the individuals, businesses, and local authorities that benefit and are best able to manage or mitigate the risk; and

25.3.5. individuals, businesses, and local authorities have a responsibility to the extent possible to insure against and attempt to minimise or mitigate risk, in advance of any event; and

25.3.6. government policies should encourage government organisations, local authorities, communities, businesses, and individuals in proper management practices such as

i. analysing local hazards and understanding risk exposure; and

ii. preventing the possibility of emergencies occurring, or reducing their likelihood or impact; and

iii. adjusting infrastructures and practices to reduce vulnerability, to mitigate the consequences, and to limit potential damage; and

26. The Guide states that the following may be eligible for government assistance.

26.1. Repair or recovery of essential infrastructure assets. These include water, stormwater, electrical, sewerage and gas facilities and other structures, such as retaining walls and tunnels upon which essential services depend. These assets must be local authority assets included on the local authority asset schedule, and which are not the property of trading utilities.

26.2. Repair or recovery of river management systems (including drainage schemes which are part of integrated river systems) where there is major community disruption or continuing risk to life.

26.3. Repair or recovery of other community assets where damaged as a consequence of the failure of flood protection schemes.

27. Government policy is to reimburse 60 percent of essential infrastructure recovery repair costs, above a threshold of 0.002% of net capital value in the case of regional councils.

28. The capital value of the region as at 30 June 2012 is $30,069,385,700. This means that central government will meet 60% of the cost above a threshold of $601,380 of restoring the community to a level where it has the capacity for self help, provided it is satisfied that HBRC has in place appropriate risk management provisions.

29. HBRC can plan on central government assistance for a disaster that impacts a large part of the region and particularly if the impact is focused on the Heretaunga Plains including the urban areas of Napier or Hastings. HBRC can also plan on no central government assistance if an event significantly impacts a relatively small part of the region, particularly a rural area; or has a relatively low level of impact across a significant part of the region. However, defining the threshold of when central government assistance will or won’t be available is not possible.

30. Through a series of scenarios discussed under the next section, an assessment has been made of HBRC financial exposure to a range of possible events.

Maximum probable loss and maximum financial exposure

31. The total replacement value of infrastructure owned or administered by HBRC is $146,200,000. HBRC annually reviews and updates the value of its infrastructure assets for audit and insurance purposes. This value is estimated on the basis that replacement of the assets would occur through an ordered programme of replacement. It provides for the replacement of assets in their current form and to the design standard to which they were constructed.

32. Because these assets are spread across the region any disaster event is unlikely to result in their total loss. However insurance industry experience from events that have impacted on other regions over the past decade is that estimated replacement values of assets requiring repair or replacement have been found to underestimate the actual cost of remedial works by a factor of 2 to 3. There are a number of reasons for this:

32.1. Design codes and construction detailing has changed since the assets were constructed. New codes and detailing add to the cost.

32.2. Construction is often more difficult as a result of other damage, loss of land, difficulty with access etc.

32.3. The construction industry can often be busy following a disaster with high demand for earthmoving machinery. This results in a less competitive market and therefore higher costs.

32.4. In house resources are above capacity and there is a need to commission consultants to undertake design work, prepare tender and contract documentation and supervise works.

32.5. There is insufficient time and resource to properly scope initial response and repair work before it commences, and therefore there is a substantial amount of work undertaken on the basis of hourly plant hire or consultancy rates.

32.6. Areas that are damaged in an event are more susceptible to further damage in subsequent events. In some instances temporary repairs will be made and there will be some delay before permanent repairs are completed, resulting in additional cost.

32.7. The situation has changed since the assets were constructed and technology used to assess options for providing a level of service that the asset was designed for has changed, resulting in an alternative design or approach being the most cost effective option.

33. The indicative estimates of probable loss, based on the expected impact of major events as assessed by senior HBRC operations and engineering staff, and utilising information provided by LAPP based on experience from other disaster events, are set out in table 2 below. If HBRC decides to remain with LAPP, then these estimates will need to be reviewed in accordance with LAPP “Flood Risk Assessment for Flood Control Schemes”.

Table 2

Return period flood	20 year average recurrence interval (ARI)	50 year ARI	100 year ARI	500 year ARI	1,000 year ARI
Estimated cost*	$785,000	$3,800,000	$7,200,000	$18,750,000	$41,550,000

* This estimated cost includes replacement of current assets at their indicative optimised replacement value (ref paragraph 37), the HBRC cost of responding to the disaster, and an allowance for unforeseen additional costs.

34. Repair costs are assumed to be up to 2.0 times replacement values. It should be noted that a more detailed assessment of potential loss will be required by LAPP if HBRC decides to retain LAPP as its infrastructure asset insurer. These estimates will then be used to review the HBRC insurance deductible and determine the change in risks associated with optimised replacement of assets over time.

35. A severe flood event that exceeds the capacity of the Heretaunga Plains stopbanks is considered to be the event that is likely to result in the biggest cost of repairs.

36. In 2005, HBRC responded to the devastation of significant areas of willow edge protection following its destruction by willow sawfly. At that time it was decided that the replacement of damaged edge protection to reinstate the level of service provided by the scheme should be achieved much more quickly than would be possible by planting new live tree edge protection. This was achieved using groynes constructed and wire rope and rail and concrete units with a range of tree species interplanted among these structures. The design was chosen as the most cost effective approach after a range of possible designs were tested through a physical model which would enable the level of service provided prior to the damage occurring to be returned in the shortest possible time.

37. Should extensive damage occur to live tree edge protection again, it will be reinstated using a similar approach to the work completed under the sawfly project. This is called the optimised replacement approach. The optimised replacement cost of critical reaches of edge protection on the Heretaunga Plains and Upper Tukituki Rivers increases the replacement value by $37m. Optimised replacement costs are not covered by the HBRC commercial insurance policy however LAPP has agreed to provide cover on the basis of optimised replacement costs. This is further discussed under the LAPP option.

38. HBRC’s financial exposure will depend on central government meeting 60% of the repair costs in accordance with the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, and the amount of financial risk that HBRC wishes to transfer through insurance. Options for this are considered in the next section.

39. While HBRC can choose to transfer some financial risk through insurance, it must recognise that insurance may not cover all costs.

40. The estimates of financial exposure (ref paragraph 73) are based on a single event. Major floods can be the result in a change in weather patterns resulting in a series of events that either cause damage or aggravate damage that has already occurred in previous events. By way of example the Canterbury earthquake of November 2010 was followed by a series of aftershocks, including the February 2011 event that devastated Christchurch.

41. It is therefore prudent, in considering the level of financial exposure that HBRC is carrying, to be prepared for a series of damaging events.

Options for Risk Financing

42. There are four broad options for disaster risk financing. These are listed and discussed below.

42.1. Membership of a mutual fund eg LAPP

42.2. Commercial insurance

42.3. HBRC reserves

42.4. Post loss borrowing.

Membership of a Mutual Fund, e.g. LAPP

43. The Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) is the only established mutual fund available to HBRC. LAPP was established in 1993 as a mutual fund owned by Local Government. Membership of LAPP is recognised by central government as an effective way of complying with the National CDEM Plan requirements.

44. LAPP has the following features that allow it to build its reserves in a cost effective manner for the benefit of its members.

44.1. Its sole purpose is to pay local government claims following a natural disaster

44.2. It is a discretionary Trust governed by a Board of Trustees, all of whom are from local government

44.3. Given its purpose to assist local government by paying claims, it is a charitable trust and as a consequence its investment income is tax free

44.4. Being a not for profit organisation all surpluses are reinvested for the benefit of members

44.5. Fund administration costs, including risk management services to members, have been less than 5% of contributions paid to the fund.

45. The fund covers 40% of the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets for each member organisation above a deductible which is the highest of its central government deductible, its estimated 20 year flood risk estimate, and 50% of its 100 year earthquake risk. For HBRC the highest is the 20 year flood risk estimate which is $1,128,000. This deductible has been set for the 2012/13 year. Regional council members of LAPP are discussing the quantum of this deductible with LAPP. The deductible may be recalculated for 2013/14 and future years.

46. Payment of a claim by LAPP is not dependent on central government agreeing to meet its 60% share.

47. LAPP currently has 58 local authority members including 5 regional authorities. It covers a total of $18.6b in infrastructure assets. HBRC is currently a member of LAPP but has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the scheme. Under the LAPP trust deed this means that HBRC membership of LAPP shall terminate at the end of the funding year following notice, i.e. 30 June 2013. That notice may however be withdrawn at any time prior to this date.

48. LAPP has advised that 19 other members have also given notice of their intention to withdraw from the Scheme on 30 June 2013 and 1 new member has joined the Scheme. LAPP representatives do not believe that the Scheme would be any less viable if all of the member organisations that have given notice do withdraw from the Scheme. While a reduced membership may result in reduced income to LAPP, it will also result in reduced risk. LAPP believes that many of the organisations that have given notice will rescind those notices.

49. LAPP has requested HBRC to advise whether or not it intends to rescind their notice by 30 April 2013 to enable LAPP to secure the best terms for members who are known to be continuing with that membership in 2013/14.

50. Both Waimakariri District and Christchurch City are LAPP members. Following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, LAPP advised its members that it had no further cover until the end of that financial year. LAPP advised that it will pay its 40% share for the Darfield (4 September 2010) and Christchurch earthquake events up to the limits of its available funds ($272.5m in a single policy period with one reinstatement – i.e. two large events in one policy period).

51. These two events occurred in one policy period (financial year) and resulted in extensive damage to the infrastructure of the largest LAPP member. The events were unprecedented and had return periods of between 2,500 and 10,000 years. The extent of liquefaction experienced had not been previously observed in an urban area. On 1 July 2010, LAPP had reserves of $40m and reinsurance cover for 40% of the cost of a claim up to $272.5m with one automatic reinstatement during the policy year. Prior to those events this was considered by LAPP and their reinsurers to contain generous contingency margins for any likely claim. The Christchurch experience has shown that these limits were in fact inadequate.

52. Prior to these events LAPP was providing its members with a 50% discount on premiums. In the 2011/12 year LAPP premiums doubled and all members were required to pay premiums without any discount. This means that the annual contribution for 2011/12 was 4 times higher than the 2010/11 financial year. HBRC contribution was approximately $80,000 in the 2010/11 year and $320,000 in the 2011/12 year.

53. Following consultation with its members, LAPP trustees chose to use for the 2012/13 year a model to calculate annual contributions which is a mixture of reinsurance and mutual self-insurance. This option will apply as LAPP rebuilds its reserves. Premiums have been substantially reduced (HBRC contribution is $195,000 for the 2012/13 year). All members have a collective exposure equal to 5 times their annual contribution per event (for any event that impacts on one or more of LAPP member organisations) with an agreed maximum of 10 times their annual contribution per year.

54. LAPP provides cover for the majority of constructed assets that make up HBRC’s flood control and drainage schemes, including the following subject to specific nomination by the member.

54.1. Live tree edge protection (where this is part of a stopbanked scheme)

54.2. Reinstatement of land within 8m of the stopbank toe

54.3. Silt clean-up costs from drains and channels.

55. In addition, for the same event LAPP covers 40% of the costs for temporary emergency repairs and response activities focused on:

55.1. Taking the necessary precautions or preventive actions (whether by evacuation of people, by construction, by demolition, or by any other means) to reduce the immediate danger to human life, where those actions were begun during the response period

55.2. Taking precautions or preventive actions with a view to reducing the impact of the event, where those actions were begun in the immediate period leading up to the event.

56. Staff have held discussions with representatives of LAPP, who have advised that LAPP will provide cover for optimised replacement value of assets, provided that they are declared by HBRC and appropriate contributions paid.

57. Staff will explore this possibility further should Council agree to remain a member of LAPP.

Commercial Insurance

58. HBRC currently has commercial insurance covering 60% of the cost of reinstatement of its assets up to a maximum of $23.5m, and with a deductable amount of $3.5m. This means that if HBRC assets nominated for cover were damaged such that their replacement value equalled or exceeded $23.5m, Council would receive an insurance payment of $12.0m. (Calculated @ ($23.5m-$3.5m) x 60% = $12.0m.)

59. The availability and cost of insurance cover, especially for high risk assets such as flood control schemes, depends on the insurance cycle. Insurance is subject to a cycle of high and low costs depending on, but not limited to, the level of natural disaster claims worldwide particularly in the developed and therefore more highly insured countries.

60. In the early 1990s commercial insurance was not available for “generally uninsurable” assets. This included most infrastructure assets. Since that time limited cover from insurance companies has become available. In “soft” conditions, commercial insurance premiums are low and insurers are more willing to cover a wide range of risks. However, following the Canterbury earthquakes, there has been a reassessment of the risks in New Zealand and the market has “hardened” significantly. This has resulted insurance and reinsurance becoming less easy to obtain and premiums and deductibles being higher.

61. Commercial insurance specifically excludes growing crops. This means that live tree edge protection which is an important part of major flood control and drainage schemes is not insured. Live tree edge protection is vulnerable to damage in any flood event and forms a major part of HBRC’s assets.

62. Examples of other repair or recovery costs that are uninsurable by commercial insurers are:

62.1. Event response costs

62.2. The need to reinstate a river into its old course

62.3. Increased length of stopbank as a result of a change in the course of a river, or the event rendering some of the ground unsuitable for the founding of a stopbank

62.4. The need to return a river channel to its previous capacity after agradation or changes in river profile has resulted in a reduced capacity

62.5. Additional costs resulting from subsequent flood events causing ongoing damage to river works

62.6. The cost of regrading drainage channels or building up stopbanks after land movement as a result of an earthquake

62.7. The cost of undertaking extensive reviews of scheme areas and assets to identify and revise flood risk areas, and the cost of any new assets needed to mitigate the risk of flooding in areas newly prone to flood risk

63. HBRC currently holds commercial insurance to cover the possibility of central government not agreeing to meet 60% of the repair costs in accordance with the policy set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan. In recent years central government has shown a willingness to provide financial support following significant disaster events.

HBRC Reserves

64. A number of councils are understood to be using the strength of their own balance sheet to cover their potential risk. HBRC mitigates a portion of its own risk through its requirement that each flood control and drainage scheme hold its own disaster reserve. HBRC also holds a regional disaster reserve which is designed to meet the difference between the individual Scheme disaster reserve and the deductible value of commercial insurance. These reserves allow HBRC to obtain commercial insurance with a relatively high deductible which substantially reduces commercial premiums.

65. However industry advisors suggest that many of those councils which have chosen to cover their risk through the strength of their balance sheet have less than $5m set held in reserves for disaster recovery with larger councils holding $10m. They advise that in their experience reserve requirements are often set at significantly less than required, and quote Christchurch City as having loss estimates prior to the February earthquake of between 10 and 20% of the actual expected repair cost.

66. It is very difficult to estimate the level of reserves that may be required as large natural disasters are relatively infrequent and it is difficult to accurately predict their impact. Utilising the organisation’s balance sheet to meet the full cost of a disaster can result in exposure of the organisation to significant financial risk. This approach is also unlikely to meet the criteria set for central government under the Guide to the National CDEM Plan as an adequate means of providing for the cost of restoration of infrastructure assets. It could therefore result in central government declining to meet 60% of the cost.

67. The use of HBRC reserves for meeting the cost of natural hazard events that occur on average more frequently than once every 20 to 25 years is considered appropriate, however staff recommend that HBRC have alternative means of disaster risk financing for larger less frequent events.

Post Loss Borrowing

68. Some local authorities that have been impacted by a natural disaster have had to use debt financing to fund the reinstatement of their assets, especially if they have not made adequate provision to cover these costs in advance.

69. A proposal to finance disaster repairs through post loss borrowing may not be recognised by central government under the Guide to the National CDEM Plan as an adequate means of providing for the cost of restoration of infrastructure assets following a natural disaster, and therefore result in central government declining to meet 60% of the cost in accordance with the provisions of the Plan.

70. There is uncertainty on the availability and cost of debt financing following a natural disaster, especially if economic conditions are weak. The ability and willingness of the community to pay for increased debt through higher rate levies will determine how much can be borrowed and the timeframes.

71. There may however be a need for some post loss financing should a decision be made to reinstate assets to a higher design standard and/or with superior materials than the damaged assets, or if asset repair costs have been underestimated.

Consideration of Options

72. Table 3 is a summary of the pros and cons of each of these options.

Table 3

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1. Mutual fund (LAPP)	· Provides cover for wide range of infrastructure assets, including other costs that are likely to arise in any response to a natural disaster. · Has relatively low deductible. · Will cover costs based on optimised replacement value. · Aligns with central government policy expectations · Governed by local government representatives specifically to meet local government costs following a disaster.	· Decisions on fund management are made by LAPP trustees and not Councillors. · There is a contingent liability which may require HBRC to contribute to the cost of a disaster in a district or region outside HB. · Annual contribution can vary depending on need to build fund and reinsurance costs. · Can become depleted by significant event elsewhere in NZ, and may have difficulty in sourcing reinsurance following multiple claims.
2. Commercial Insurance	· Relatively low premiums for high level of potential claim. · Able to secure insurance at relatively short notice.	· High deductible · Will only cover costs for specified assets – there is likely to be significant costs not covered by commercial insurance. · Does not provide cover for live tree edge protection. · Premiums can fluctuate depending pressure on reinsurance markets.
3. HBRC reserves	· No ongoing premiums or contributions, except as structured within HBRC. · Unlimited flexibility in how disaster funding is paid.	· Difficult to financially justify holding significant reserves in case of a major disaster. Money may be more effectively used for other HBRC activities. · Significant risk of exceeding reserve amount, or having inadequate cover for single or series of disasters. · A disaster will have large financial impact on HBRC reserves at a time when rating income will be most under pressure, due to potential economic impact of event on region. · Unlikely to meet expectations for self help required as prerequisite for central government assistance.
4. Post Loss Borrowing	· No ongoing premiums or contributions, except as necessary to secure loan facility.	· Borrowing for each flood control and drainage scheme will place significant ongoing financial burden on scheme ratepayers who will be under financial stress. · Unlikely to meet expectations for self help required as prerequisite for central government assistance.

HBRC Financial Exposure

73. HBRC financial exposure to an event based on the estimated level of damage is set out in table 4.

Table 4

Return period flood	20 yr ARI	50 yr ARI	100 yr ARI	500 yr ARI	1,000 yr ARI
Estimated cost	$785,000	$3,800,000	$7,200,000	$18,750,000	$41,550,000
Costs met from
Option 1
Central government	$81,000	$1,860,000	$3,800,000	$9,690,000	$21,570,000
LAPP	0	$968,000	$2,270,000	$6,190,000	$14,110,000
HBRC	$704,000	$972,000	$1,130,000	$2,870,000	$5,870,000
Option 2
Central government	$81,000	$1,860,000	$3,800,000	$9,690,000	$21,570,000
Commercial insurance	0	0	0	$1,120,000	$5,090,000
HBRC	$704,000	$1,940,000	$3,400,000	$7,940,000	$14,890,000
Option 3
Central government*	$81,000	$1,860,000	$3,800,000	$9,690,000	$21,570,000
HBRC	$704,000	$1,940,000	$3,400,000	$9,060,000	$19,980,000
Option 4
Central government*	$81,000	$1,860,000	$3,800,000	$9,690,000	$21,570,000
HBRC	$704,000	$1,940,000	$3,400,000	$9,060,000	$19,980,000

*As stated above these options may not meet the expectations of central government in terms of the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Strategy. This additional degree of uncertainty should be noted when considering these options.

Funding of HBRC share

74. HBRC’s current policy (February 2007) is for the HBRC share of the cost of a disaster to be provided for in a combination of ways, including:

74.1. Disaster Reserve Investment Funds accumulated by the Regional Community

74.2. Disaster Damage Investment Funds accumulated by each individual Council managed Flood Control and Drainage Scheme

74.3. A proportion of annual maintenance budgets of various Flood and Drainage Schemes able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

75. These sources of funds are to be referred to as Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves.

Disaster Damage Reserves

76. These reserves will be available to deal with any situation resulting in damage to infrastructure assets regardless of the level of financial loss but within specified criteria.

77. The disaster reserves for each scheme shall be built up to a level in excess of the minimum amount required to meet the costs of a single disaster. The disaster reserve for each scheme may be capped at a target level of the greater of 1.5 times the level required to meet the scheme excess of one disaster event, less 20% of each scheme’s current years maintenance budget; or the level required to meet the scheme excess for one disaster event. Furthermore, all schemes with infrastructure assets will have a disaster reserve of at least $5,000.

78. Table 5 sets out the required Scheme excess and target levels. If any scheme account ends with a significant surplus in any one year and the disaster reserve target level has not been achieved, consideration will be given whether or not to increase the level of contribution made to the scheme disaster fund.

Table 5

Scheme

Excess

(2006 asset values)

Maintenance expenditure able to be redirected

Target level for disaster reserve

Balance at 30 June 2006

Heretaunga Plains Rivers

Heretaunga Plains Drains

Napier Meeanee

Brookfields Awatoto

Pakowhai

Muddy Creek

Haumoana

Karamu

Twyford Raupare

Tutaekuri Waimate

Puninga

Upper Tukituki

Makara

Paeroa

Poukawa

Esk

Whirinaki

Ohuia Whakaki

Te Awanga

Kopuawhara

$654,004

$89,468

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$18,980

$189,943

$39,485

$41,115

$6,953

$408,690

$30,898

$20,735

$12,452

$5,000

$9,343

$11,332

$7,466

$5,000

$100,000

$30,000

$7,500

$11,500

$17,000

$9,000

$59,500

$16,500

$20,000

$8,000

$67,500

$2,500

$3,100

$2,000

$1,000

$2,800

$1,000

$881,066

$104,202

$10,681

$15,581

$14,623

$19,470

$225,415

$42,727

$41,672

$6,953

$545,535

$43,847

$28,002

$15,578

$5,500

$13,014

$14,198

$10,199

$6,500

$708,191

$55,482

$6,009

$13,523

$12,091

$115,754

$24,816

$21,078

$4,192

$266,696

$25,547

$23,912

$10,168

$11,834

$9,064

$10,126

$4,353

$100

79. Note these disaster reserve caps are now adjusted annually to take into account inflation.

80. The Regional Disaster reserve will:

80.1. Meet any extraordinary costs of managing the response and recovery to a disaster event

80.2. Meet 60% of any unfunded portion of asset reinstatement cost following a disaster event.

81. The Regional Disaster Reserve will generally be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range $2.75M to $3.75M.

82. If investments exceed $3.75M in value then some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account. The Chief Executive of Council has discretion to decide what investments should be sold, and the timing of any sale, and is required to report any sales to Council.

Criteria for the Build-up, Use and Maintenance of Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves

83. Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.

84. Reserves will be used to meet the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets (to an equivalent standard to that in place before the damage was incurred).

85. The initial cost of restoring the Council’s infrastructure assets (to be referred to as Scheme Excesses) will be met by each relevant Flood Control and Drainage Scheme to a maximum level per Scheme of 2.5% of the replacement value of edge protection, plus 2% of the replacement value of stopbanks and detention dams plus, 1.5% of the replacement value of all drainage assets of each Scheme. This obligation will be met by Disaster Damage Investment Funds and annual maintenance budgets able to be redirected to repairing disaster damage.

86. All efforts will be made to maximise any disaster recovery contributions from Central Government or any other sources.

87. Income earned on Reserve investment funds may be used to meet the cost of commercial insurance cover taken on Council “generally uninsurable” infrastructure assets.

88. Income from all Disaster Reserve and Disaster Damage investments will be credited to the respective Reserves until such time as the Reserves build up their required level of funding. At such time as each Reserve meets the target level, income will be available to help meet the funding requirements of Council or Flood and Drainage Scheme annual operational expenditure.

89. Once Reserves have met their target level of funding and are subsequently reduced below the scheme excess the Reserve must be reinstated to the target level for each disaster reserve within 10 years.

90. Based on this policy the HBRC contribution to the cost of a disaster under Option 1 LAPP could be met as set out in table 6. Note that these estimates assume significant damage to the Heretaunga Plains Scheme and Upper Tukituki Scheme, but could vary considerably depending on the location of the area most impacted by the event and the type of damage incurred. They should therefore be considered indicative only.

Table 6

Return period flood	20 yr ARI	50 yr ARI	100 yr ARI	500 yr ARI	1,000 yr ARI
Estimated cost	$785,000	$3,800,000	$7,200,000	$18,750,000	$41,550,000
Option 1
HBRC exposure	$704,000	$972,000	$1,130,000	$2,870,000	$5,870,000
Costs met from
CDEM operational budget	$12,000	$25,000	$50,000	$100,000	$150,000
Other operational budgets	$40,000	$60,000	$70,000	$100,000	$200,000
Scheme operational budget	$150,000	$167,000	$200,000	$200,000	$250,000
Scheme disaster reserve	$502,000	$620,000	$660,000	$1,000,000	$1,200,000
Regional disaster reserve	0	$100,000	$150,000	$1,470,000	$3,500,000
Other HBRC reserves or reduction in work programmes					$570,000
Total	$704,000	$972,000	$1,130,000	$2,870,000	$5,870,000

Conclusions

91. Insurance cover for HBRC infrastructure assets has been assessed by staff. Their conclusion is that:

91.1. LAPP provides a cost effective insurance cover for HBRC infrastructure assets

91.2. Commercial insurance is no longer essential as there is now a stronger commitment from central government to meet a share of the disaster cost as set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.

92. Staff therefore recommend that Council:

92.1. Rescinds its notice of intention to withdraw from LAPP

92.2. Notes within its accounts the contingent liability associated with being part of a mutual insurance scheme

92.3. Continues to maintain a level of self insurance through Scheme disaster reserves and the Regional disaster reserve

92.4. Does not renew its commercial insurance for infrastructure assets effective from the 2013/14 financial year

92.5. Continues to work with LAPP to improve estimates of flood risk to HBRC infrastructure assets, and to develop optimised replacement valuations for all assets

92.6. Reviews its self insurance arrangements to provide the most cost effective cover for all HBRC infrastructure assets.

Decision Making Process

93. 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:

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

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

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

93.4. No persons are directly affected by this decision.

93.5. Options that have been considered are as outlined in this paper.

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

93.7. 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.

Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 1

1.0 Introduction

This operational plan sets out how Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will implement the animal pest objectives for the control of animal pests as set out in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

2.0 Background

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the management agency for the RPMP. As the management agency, Council is required to prepare an annual operational plan that sets out how the strategy is to be implemented. Following the end of each financial year, staff will report to Council on the implementation of the operational plan.

This operational plan focuses on the objectives for the control of animal pests as set out in the RPMP. HBRC’s draft 2015/16 Annual Plan details the expected level of expenditure by Council in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMP.

3.0 Measuring Performance

Staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year on the animal pest control programmes undertaken over the previous financial year. This report will indicate the level of achievement towards the RPMP objectives that has been made during the past year. Specifically the report will cover:

· The programmes undertaken compared to the approved programme as set out in the Operational Plan;

· Results from any trend monitoring undertaken, and an assessment of these results;

· The number of complaints and enquires received, and a summary of those complaints and enquires;

· The education initiatives undertaken during the year — the number of presentations and publications or press releases on pest management issues;

· The number of direction notices issued, the level of compliance with those notices, and any follow-up activity undertaken;

· The outcomes of all service delivery operations undertaken;

· All research initiatives to which contributions have been made during the year; and

· Any cross boundary issues that arose and how they were resolved.

4.0 Animal Pest categories

The RPMP contains two classes of animal pests, Regional Control Animal Pests and Site Specific Animal Pests.

RPMS Classification

Animal Species

Regional control

animal pests

Possums;

Rabbits; and

Rooks.

Site specific control

animal pests

Feral goats;

Feral deer, Feral pigs;

Mustelids (weasels, ferrets, and stoats);

Feral cats; and

Rats (Norway and ship rats).

The operational plan details the strategy objective for the control of the animal pests and provides a brief description of what activities HBRC will undertake to achieve the stated objective.

5.0 Regional Control Animal Pests

Regional control animal pests are pests that have management programmes which cover the entire region. The main focus of this programme is the control of possums through the implementation of Self-help Possum Control Areas (PCAs).

Possums

The control of possums is the major focus of Council’s animal pest control programme. The strategy objective for possum control is:

That by 30 June 2016 possum control measures will be operating over 900,000 hectares of land, ensuring that possum density on that land is below 5% trap catch.

To achieve this objective HBRC established Possum Control Areas (PCAs) with the support and assistance of land occupiers. Within PCAs, Council arranged for initial possum control to 3% residual trap catch (rtc) using pest control contractors. Occupiers of land which has received such control are now required to maintain possum numbers at 5% rtc.

When an Animal Health Board (AHB) possum control programme is withdrawn from an area, the Council requires land occupiers within that area to form a PCA.

Total area of productive land with low possum numbers is

· PCA’s 507,740 ha

· AHB 400,000 (approximately) ha

· Remaining productive land still to be treated 24,998ha’s

This area is made up of the Nuhaka, Mahanga and Papuni operations within which land occupiers have declined participating in the PCA programme.

With this exception HBRC have achieved the possum control objective.

The Animal Health Board (now trading as TBfree NZ) have advised HBRC that they will be withdrawing control over 51,126 hectares of productive land in the 2015/16 year. In addition there is 43,310 hectares deferred by TBFree in 2014-15 that will also transition to the PCA programme in the 15-16 financial year. HBRC have agreed with AHB that the establishment of bait stations over this area shall be undertaken by HBRC. Staff plan for this work to be undertaken over the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years. Biosecurity staff will ensure that these properties will have bait stations set up by Council for possum control maintenance. Staff will also visit each individual property within this area and ensure that occupiers are fully aware of the following:

· The relevant content of the RPMP including the requirement for landowners and occupiers to keep possum numbers below 5% rtc;

· The process of establishing a PCA;

· The availability of Council assistance to land occupiers from the Biosecurity Advisory Team;

· Council’s approach to compliance including different levels of monitoring; and

· The consequences of non-compliance, which includes Council undertaking possum control work to meet the 5% rtc requirement through a contractor; and billing the occupier for the cost of that control.

Initial Contact:

Land owners and occupiers are also briefed on control methods and are encouraged to engage a contractor to carry out the required maintenance work. Occupiers in PCAs are encouraged to carry out maintenance in a three-month period in order to gain maximum benefit from maintenance efforts and reduce the risk of reinvasion from untreated neighbours within the same PCA.

Subsequent Contact:

Follow-up contact regarding maintenance in subsequent years is greatly reduced and will involve reminder letters and phone calls.

Monitoring:

Trend monitoring will be carried out over PCAs to provide an indication of the success of the programme and to provide an early warning of any possible problem areas. Monitors will be undertaken over individual properties to determine the success of individuals control methods, and where it is suspected that the occupier is not meeting the required 5% rtc.

Maintenance Contractors:

The Advisory Team will recommend the use of maintenance contractors to land occupiers in PCAs, audit their work, assist with training opportunities and receive reports from them regarding the work that they are carrying out on behalf of landowners.

Boundary control

Currently the southern regional boundary is subject to an agreement between Horizons and HBRC Biosecurity staff for possum control to be undertaken as necessary to complement HBRC’s PCA programme.

In the 2015/16 financial year staff will undertake discussions with the Gisborne District Council to put in place a boundary control programme to assist ratepayers in the northern part of the region on the PCA programme.

Urban pest management

Possum control in an urban environment brings a range of biodiversity and amenity benefits. The Hawkes Bay Urban Biodiversity project commenced with the highly successful Napier hill possum control operation which was completed in June 2009. Bird monitoring has shown significant increases within the urban environment in a range of bird species. Bellbirds have trebelled and Tui has quadrupled in number.

Completed areas are shown on Map 1

Areas proposed for control in the 2015/16 year are:

Proposed Semi Urban Pest Management Operational Areas 2015/16

Urban Pest Management Operational Areas	Hectares
Waipawa	450
Awatoto	995
Meeanee	1,429
Total Hectares	2,874

These are shown on Maps 2 and 3

Map 2

Map 3

There is approximately 6,000 ha of urban or semi urban areas in the broader Napier and Hastings urban area that are still to receive initial control. Control will be programmed at 300-1000 ha per annum.

Product Subsidy Scheme:

HBRC provides a subsidy on a range of possum control products. All land occupiers who are part of a possum control area will be given the opportunity of training and advice in the best methods of possum control on their land as part of their ongoing possum control programme. Advice will cover such things as potential possum food sources, suitable possum control methods and appropriate timing of control methods. The subsidised products will be available to all ratepayers, whether they are in a PCA or not.

Bait Stations:

A range of bait stations will be supplied to occupiers in PCAs who engage the services of a maintenance contractor. Numbers will be limited and contractors are required to install them to a prescribed protocol and all bait station locations must be recorded by Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with that data provided to Council.

QEII:

Landowners who have a QEII block less than 20 hectares on their property are eligible to receive free possum bait sufficient to control possums within the QEII area. For landowners with QEIIs greater than 20 hectares, or where several small QEIIs are collectively greater than 20 hectares, HBRC arranges and pays for possum control.

Table shows those PCAs that will receive initial contact regarding possum maintenance:

First Round of Maintenance 2015/2016

Self-Help Possum Control Areas	Hectares
Coach Road	9,244.3
Glengarry	13,591.3
Mangatahi	8,744
Matahorua	1,262.7
Pakowhai North	9,586.4
Patunamu GS1	6,980.7
Patunamu GS2	10,393.6
Raupunga	8,000.4
Tuai	5,428.3
Tutira	4,756.3
Waihua River	17,738.1
Waikaremoana	5,603.5
Wairoa Buffer GS1	8,926
Wairoa Buffer GS2	15,134.8
Totals	125,390.4

The PCAs in the table have already received the first intensive round of visits from the Advisory Team and will be contacted reminding them of the need to carry out maintenance.

Trend Monitoring

Council monitors 10% of the PCA programme annually. Of this area monitored no more than 10% of monitoring lines should exceed a 5% trap catch. Where lines over 5% are identified, staff visit the land occupier(s) and discuss what actions they should be taking to reduce possum numbers.

Rabbits

The RPMS long term goal and strategy objective for rabbits is:

Long Term Goal: To minimise the adverse effects of rabbits on the region’s biodiversity and economic prosperity.

Strategy Objective: To ensure that rabbits are maintained below level 4, on the McLean Scale.

To achieve this, the Strategy states that HBRC will:

· Conduct targeted surveillance of rabbit prone areas;

· Conduct periodic monitoring of rabbits at known or suspected Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease (RHD) areas;

· Provide advice and education to land occupiers, including occupiers of small blocks, to help them control rabbits by the most efficient and effective means.

· Monitor for compliance with the rabbit control rule; and

· At its discretion, and as set out in an approved management programme, meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control on rateable land where rabbit numbers exceed 4 on the McLean Scale.

Monitoring

HBRC implements the following monitoring regimes:

(a) Density Monitoring

Density monitoring will involve spotlight counts every 1 to 2 years along 21 predetermined rabbit monitoring lines. These lines have been selected based on historical spotlight count routes with approximately 80% of the lines in “rabbit prone areas” and the remainder outside those areas. These lines are to be counted over two nights using national protocols.

(b) RHD Monitoring

In accordance with nationally accepted guidelines, HBRC conducts the sampling of rabbits from at least 15 different sites around the region on a 1 to 2 year basis and tests for RHD. This monitoring will be used to confirm the presence or absence of RHD, or any levels of immunity that may be building in the rabbit population. The information gathered from this monitoring will be entered on the Rabbit Database and will provide information that may be used to assess the need for greater intervention in rabbit control.

(c) Compliance Monitoring

If Biosecurity staff receive a complaint or enquiry about a property with high rabbit numbers then staff or a contractor commissioned by HBRC will visit the property and carry out an assessment of rabbit numbers. If densities are found to be greater than 4 on the McLean scale, the occupier may be issued with a notice of direction under section 122 of the Biosecurity Act to comply with the RPMP rule which requires landowners to maintain rabbit populations below 4 on the McLean scale from mid- January to mid-August. Complaints will only be acted on from mid- January to mid-August as temporary spikes in the population can occur outside these times. The RPMP states that HBRC will at its discretion meet up to 50% of the cost of rabbit control.

Education

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide advice and education to land occupiers, including occupiers of small blocks, to encourage them to control rabbits by the most efficient and effective means. This work will comprise advising and educating individual land occupiers on ways of minimising the risk of rabbits impacting on their properties, participating in discussion groups, field days, preparing pamphlets and using media opportunities to convey relevant information.

Incentive Scheme

Where there are incidents of rabbit populations exceeding 4 on the McLean Scale, the occupier of that land may qualify for financial assistance from HBRC to assist with the cost of rabbit control. Before any such assistance is agreed to by HBRC, the occupier will be required to have an agreed management programme, which will specify the method of rabbit control and set out a long-term management programme aimed at limiting rabbit populations in the future. The HBRC contribution to any control work shall be funded from the rabbit reserve fund.

Service Delivery

HBRC do not use staff to conduct any rabbit control operations. The major focus is on monitoring rabbit populations to ensure rabbit populations are maintained at or below level four on the McLean Scale, and to provide information and advice to occupiers. In certain circumstances the incentive scheme will be used to assist land occupiers with rabbit control, with Council providing an advisory or contract management role.

Map 1: Rabbit night count routes.

Map 2: RCV sample sites.

Rooks

The RPMS long term goal and objective for rooks is:

Long Term Goal: To eradicate rooks from Hawke’s Bay.

Strategy Objective: From north of the ‘rook clear line’ destroy all known rookeries by 30 June 2016. From south of the ‘rook clear line’ reduce rook numbers to 4,000 birds by 31 December 2016 and maintain rooks, such that numbers do not exceed that amount in the future.

The rook clear line is defined by SH5.

To achieve this, the Strategy states that:

· Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide information to land occupiers on rook identification, the potential adverse effects that they cause, who to contact for rook control, and the risks of inappropriate control.

· North of the ‘rook clear line’, all known rookeries will be destroyed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council by 30 June 2016, subject to climatic conditions being suitable.

· South of the ‘rook clear line’, as described in Figure 5, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will provide an annual rook control service, when climatic conditions are suitable, to reduce the population to a maximum of 4,000 birds by 31 December 2016. Rook numbers will then be kept at or below this level.

Service Delivery

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will arrange for all rook control operations.

Eradication Zone

In the northern half of the region, it is intended to eradicate rooks by 30 June 2016. While rook numbers have been significantly reduced and eradication is possible in the longer term this will not be achieved by 30 June 2016.

HBRC will employ suitable contractors to undertake annual control work over all rookeries in the eradication zone. HBRC will conduct an annual rookery count in this part of the region to determine the effects of the control contract. Operations will be co-ordinated with Gisborne District Council in this zone where low numbers of rooks are present.

Aerial Rook Control in Action:

Map 3: Aerial Rook Programme

Note: It is estimated that there are approx 2.5 rooks for each active nest.

Map 4: Extinct Rookeries

Control Zone

In the southern half of the region, it is intended to reduce rook numbers to below 4000 by 31 December 2016, and then maintain rook numbers below this level. Council will arrange for suitable contractors to undertake annual control work. The main control work will be conducted during spring and summer.

Biosecurity staff will respond to complaints or enquires about rooks in the Control Zone. Where rooks appear to be causing damage to agricultural crops or causing a general nuisance, Council will arrange for control work to be conducted, if Biosecurity staff believe that a successful result is possible. This decision will be based on the weather and availability of other food sources.

6.0 Education

Advice and information on identifying rooks will be provided to ratepayers on request. Specific information about rooks, the difficulty of control and how best to manage rooks will be made available to specific grower organisations in late winter, to assist farmers identify potential problems and provide possible solutions before crops are planted.

7.0 Site Specific Pests

Site Specific Pests will only have management programmes in place in specific sites and under certain criteria. There are 30 site specific animal pest community groups currently being supported. The RPMP lists feral goats, feral deer, feral pigs, mustelids (weasels, ferrets, and stoats), feral cats, and rats (Norway and ship rats) as Site Specific Animal Pests. Where there are sufficient benefits to doing so, and upon land user request, HBRC may meet up to 50% of the cost of control to any land occupier. HBRC will provide “Environment Topics” on the best methods to control these pests in response to public enquires.

8.0 QEII Covenanted Land

Site specific animal pest control on QEII blocks outside PCA’s will be in accordance with an approved management plan with individual occupiers.

HBRC may consider treatment of pests on QEII blocks less than 20 hectares or other land with high ecological value where the conservation values of that land justify such control. Financial assistance for the control of animal pests on covenanted land smaller than 20 hectares may be available on request from the land occupier. Before any assistance is provided HBRC must assess the land, and a management plan be agreed between the occupier and HBRC.

9.0 Research Initiatives

There are a range of research initiatives under way as part of HBRC’s approved stage two for wide scale predator control that will continue into the 2015-16 financial year under this operational plan. These include chew card operational maximisation, minimum predator control area modelling, benefits from reducing toxoplasmosis, farmer WSPC value proposition / uptake and “green credentials” for farm products where farm management delivers environmental outcomes.

Wireless trap monitoring

This is a key transformational element of wide scale predator control research and operational implementation. Predator pest initial control and particularly the long term maintenance have considerable labour costs associated with them. Wireless trap monitoring is essentially having each trap linked to a wireless reporting system so when the trap is triggered the operator is notified on a smart phone or laptop with the physical location of the triggered trap shown on a map. Wireless trap monitoring has the potential to reduce the costs of predator pest control by 50-80% and is a critical link to transformational regional success large scale against predator pests. An initial roll out of wireless trap monitoring has been very successful in March and April 2015. Trials for wireless trap monitoring will be up scaled and further tested in the 2015-16 year.

Compare camera traps, predator detection dogs and predator tracking tunnels in terms of sensitivity and cost-effectiveness

Motions sensitive camera monitoring is key to the long term ability to manage vertebrate predator pests within the region. Cameras will provide the ability to measure pre and post control success and therefore the link to biodiversity and economic outcome delivery. Cameras will also allow survivor detection and predator hot spot surveillance.

Model effectiveness of predator control with varying levels of landholder participation

While the opportunity exists with a 3-5 year timeframe through the RPMP process to integrate other predator pests into the PCA programme with a compliance target, control of predators is currently voluntary. This research looks specifically at a range of scenarios where not all of an area has received control and based on the biological characteristics of predator pests what the outcome impacts of some farms not participating is.

Design detailed toxoplasmosis research programme designed with key stakeholders engaged, and necessary baseline data gathered.

Toxoplasmosis is a key link to economic outcomes that may be delivered through wide scale feral cat control. Within this region there are millions of dollars lost through toxoplasmosis causing abortions in pregnant sheep or through the costs associated with vaccination against toxoplasmosis. This research looks to gather baseline data to allow an understanding over the duration of the project whether large scale feral cat control reduces the incidence of toxoplasmosis within the landscape.

Baseline surveys on attitudes and barriers to participation completed

Community uptake and engagement are key deliverables for the Cape to City project. Both urban and rural surveys are proposed to better understand why people may be interested in participating in biodiversity activities, what values are associated with that, what the barriers to participation are ect.

Outcomes monitoring

A number of outcome based studies have been completed within the Cape to City sister project Poutiri Ao o Tane including the recovery of invertebrates/ skinks and lizards and a study on rabbit pasture browse. Statistically significant results to date show that lizards and invertebrates populations benefit from predator control. Additional monitoring particularly around threatened and endangered bird species, rabbits, invertebrates and lizards will be implemented in the Cape to City project.

Bird count monitoring

Monitoring has been completed on one urban site (Napier hill) and one rural site (Kuru range) to assess native bird numbers after possum control taking place. Follow up monitoring will continue to assess the changes in bird numbers over time. Bird Count monitoring has shown that the urban possum control programme has been very successful with Tui quadrupling and Bell bird trebling in numbers on the Napier hill since control was implemented in 2008.

10.0 Advice And Information

Public inquires regarding the control of animal pests listed in the RPMP will be dealt with as noted in this Plan. For inquires regarding control of magpies, HBRC has a limited number of traps which it can make available to occupiers to conduct their own control. For all other animals of concern information will be provided to assist people undertake their own control. This information may be by way of sending them Environment Topics or providing people with a list of pest control contractors who could assist them control the animal of concern.

11.0 Argentine ants

HBRC is currently undertaking surveillance activities to access the extent of the argentine ant infestation in the region. In addition to this public awareness of this pest is being built and best practice control and guidelines provided to occupiers who may want to undertake control.

12.0 Wide Scale predator Control - Cape to City

HBRC is currently involved in a multi agency ecological restoration initiative called Cape to City. The Cape to City project is a community based initiative with strong backing from several agencies including HBRC, DOC, Landcare Research, the Aotearoa Foundation and land users.

The project is ambitious and hopes to achieve positive biodiversity and social outcomes over 26,000 hectares encompassing both DOC reserves and private farmland. The vision of this project is to have “Native species thrive where we live, work and play.”

It will achieve this through success in two key areas:

1) Showing the technical pathway to ultra low cost integrated possum, feral cat, mustelid and hedgehog control. Rats will also be controlled in the landscape as well where this will deliver to the outcomes sought.

2) Engaging our communities and particularly our urban communities into the value of biodiversity at a much greater level they are currently engaged now.

13.0 Regional pest management Plan review

Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 Council must initiate a proposal for the review of the current operative RPMP 2013 before December 2018. It is clear now under section 71 that what is required under the National Policy Direction (NPD) is that for any RPMPs that are proposed after the NPD is enacted Council must consider whether an RPMP proposal is consistent with the NPD. Council is not required to initiate an RPMP proposal within a set time of the NPD being enacted.

Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 2

1.0 Introduction

This operational plan sets out how HBRC will implement the objectives for the control of plant pests as set out in the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). This operational plan is effective from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

2.0 Background

HBRC is the management agency for the RPMP. As the management agency HBRC is required to prepare an operational plan that sets out how the Plan is to be implemented. At the end of each financial year, staff will report to Council on the implementation of the operational plan.

This operational plan focuses on the methods of implementing the objectives for the control of plant pests as set out in the RPMP. HBRC’s annual plan details the expected level of expenditure by HBRC in working towards achieving the objectives set out in the RPMP. The operational plan details the methods used to achieve those objectives.

3.0 Measuring performance

Staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year on the plant pest control programmes undertaken over the previous financial year through the annual report. This report will indicate the level of achievement towards the RPMP objectives that has been made during the past year. Specifically the report will cover:

· The programmes undertaken compared to the proposed programme as set out in the Operational Plan;

· A summary of all subsidy fund applications received;

· The education initiatives undertaken during the year and the number of presentations and publications or press releases on pests management issues;

· The number of direction notices issued, the level of compliance with those notices, and any follow-up activity undertaken;

· The results of biological control research and monitoring, and the number of bio-control releases undertaken;

· Any cross boundary issues that arose and how they were resolved.

4.0 Total control plant pests

The RPMP defines a Total Control plant pest as one that is of limited distribution in the region, and the long-term goal is its eventual eradication. Seventeen plants are listed as Total Control plant pests. The RPMP places these into two categories, Service Delivery and Occupier Responsibility.

For each of these plant categories the operational plan provides a brief description of what activities HBRC will undertake to achieve the RPMP objectives.

(i) Table 1: Plant Pests

Total Control (Service Delivery)	Management Regime
African feather grass	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Goats rue	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Nassella tussock	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Phragmites	In accordance with the contract between HBRC and Ministry of Primary Industries, HBRC will control every known infestation of this plant annually
Privet	HBRC has altered the delivery of the Privet programme to service delivery by a contractor. The contractor should be able to control Privet on most properties within at least six weeks of a legitimate complaint. However, this does not apply to Privet found in rural areas. In these situations, Occupiers are responsible and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. The Standard Operating Procedures for managing Privet are attached to this paper. (Appendix 1)
Spiny emex	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
White edged nightshade	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity
Yellow water lily	HBRC will at its discretion control every known infestation before seeds reach maturity

Total Control (Occupier Responsibility)	Management Regime
Apple of Sodom	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Apple of Sodom on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Australian sedge	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Australian sedge on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Chilean needle grass	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Chilean Needle grass on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. Chilean needle grass has been identified in summer dry areas of the region — west of Napier, and on land at Maraekakaho, Poukawa, Waipawa, Wakarara, Omakere and Porangahau. There are infestations on river berm land and roadsides. Biosecurity staff will arrange for the control of Chilean needle grass on public land. On private land occupiers are required to control Chilean needle grass in accordance with their agreed management programmes. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so. HBRC will support Marlborough District and Environment Canterbury in raising awareness of CNG within New Zealand and to help achieve milestones in the Sustainable Farming Fund CNG Project. HBRC will encourage the use of the new control tool, Flupropanate as required. HBRC will assist Marlborough District Council and Canterbury Regional Council in undertaking further Flupropanate trials to provide residue and efficacy data to the Environmental Protection Agency
Cotton thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Cotton thistle on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Japanese honeysuckle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Japanese Honeysuckle on their land in the designated control area, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Pinus contorta	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Pinus contorta on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so HBRC will continue to work with its partners in Nature Central to achieve operational efficiencies and to target strategic infestations HBRC will continue the clearing of Pinus contorta on multiple ownership land in the Rangitaiki area as resources allow.
Old man’s beard	The RPMP states that North of SH 5 Old man’s beard is not as widespread as it is South of this area, and it is therefore still worthwhile to require occupiers to continue to control OMB north of SH5. South of SH5 staff will respond to complaints. South of SH5 Council will still encourage the control of OMB but will not enforce compliance. Landusers below SH5 will still be eligible for the incentive scheme for the control of OMB. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so There are major infestations along the river-berms, especially in Central Hawke’s Bay and the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro River. This land is administered as part of the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme and the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme respectively.
Saffron thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Saffron thistle on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so
Woolly nightshade	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Woolly nightshade on their land, and may qualify for a subsidy under the incentive scheme. HBRC will at its discretion control some known infestations before seeds reach maturity where it is practical to do so

5.0 Boundary control plant pests

The RPMP defines a Boundary Control plant pest as one that is abundant in suitable habitats in the region. The long-term goal is to prevent these plant pests spreading to new areas or neighbouring properties. The RPMP requires land occupiers to keep their property boundary free of the Boundary Control plant pest, if it is not present within a defined distance on their neighbour’s property.

Biosecurity staff will respond to a complaint from an affected occupier regarding the control of Boundary Control plant pests. On getting a complaint, a Biosecurity Officer will visit the property of the complainant and adjoining property, to confirm the identity of the plant, and what if any control needs to be carried out. Should control work be necessary the occupier of the property on which the infestation originates will be asked to carry out the necessary control work. A follow up inspection will be carried out to ensure work has been completed and if necessary, enforcement action will be undertaken.

Boundary Control	Management Regime
Bathurst bur	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Bathurst bur on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 5m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Blackberry	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Blackberry on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 10m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Gorse	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Gorse on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 10m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Nodding thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Nodding thistle on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 20m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Ragwort	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Ragwort on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 20m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.
Variegated thistle	Occupiers are responsible for the control of Variegated thistle on their land. Where necessary all plants need to be cleared within 5m of the boundary of adjoining clear land.

Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2015-16

Attachment 3

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

operational plan

Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management

july 2015 to 30 june 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Background

3.0 Measuring Performance

4.0 Phytosanitary Pests to be Controlled

4.1 Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis)

4.2 Codling moth (Cydia pomonella)

4.3 European Canker (Nectria galligena)

4.4 Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora)

4.5 Lightbrown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana)

5.0 Flowchart - implementing the Operational Plan

6.0 Occupiers Responsibilities

7.0 Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Responsibility

8.0 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Responsibilities

9.0 Management Options for Controlling Phytosanitary Pests

10.0 Enforcement

1.0 Introduction

This Operational Plan focuses on the methods for implementing the control of Phytosanitary Pests as set out in the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association is responsible for monitoring of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. They will be the initial facilitator in responding to enquiries, and ensuring monitoring information is gathered in response to landowners’ complaints.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will assist Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association to achieve a satisfactory conclusion when their involvement and discussions have failed to resolve the issue.

2.0 Background

HBRC will be the management agency for the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. As the management agency HBRC is required to prepare an Operational Plan that sets out how the Plan is to be implemented. The Operational Plan will be reviewed annually. At the end of each financial year, Pipfruit New Zealand, and Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association in consultation with HBRC will report to council on the implementation of the Operational Plan.

3.0 Measuring Performance

HBRC staff will report to Council by 30 November each calendar year. These reports will document the performance of HBRC in achieving the objectives of this Regional Photosanitary Pest Management Plan including whether:

· A complaints and enquiries register has been maintained, and follow up action has been taken as appropriate;

· Any phytosantitary pest management control has been undertaken;

· The cost of implementing this strategy.

4.0 Phytosanitary Pests to be Controlled

4.1 Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis)

Description

Apple black spot is a fungal disease, often referred to as apple scab outside of New Zealand. It is a wet weather disease, and rainy and humid conditions provide ideal conditions for infection. Even the smallest black spot is unacceptable for export.

Rule for Control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Apple black spot (Venturia inaequalis) on their land from the presence of green tips until fruit harvest by applying Apple black spot fungicides on a calendar basis as per the fungicide label instructions.

A breach of this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Fruit so treated will not be available for export sale.

4.2 Codling moth (Cydia pomonella)

Description

Codling moth is a small speckled, grey moth, hosted by apple, pear and walnut trees. The larvae of Codling moth burrows into fruit leaving small holes. The Frass (droppings) indicates the presence of the larva. The moth over-winters as a dormant caterpillar in a cocoon under the bark of the tree or in the soil.

Rule for Control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) on their land if five (5) or more Codling moths are caught in any one Codling moth pheromone trap during any calendar week on their land.

A breach of the rule is an offence under the section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Codling moth.

4.3 European Canker (Nectria galligena)

Description

Initial symptoms of European canker are a small sunken area around a bud, leaf scar, or at the base of a small dead shoot or open wound. Concentric rings of a canker growth then appear. The sunken area increases in size with the centre becoming flaky, eventually it will girdle the stem and shoots above the canker die.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control European Canker (Nectria galligena) by inspecting all pipfruit trees on their land at least once during winter (May to August), and removing and burning all pipfruit trees showing any presence of European Canker.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of the pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control European Canker.

4.4 Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora)

Description

Blossom infection can result in “shepherds crook” of the shoot. Blossom appear water soaked then turn brown and finally black. Young fruit if infected turn brown, then black, wilt then drop off.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora) on their land during the pipfruit bloom period (from pink to petal fall) by applying Fireblight bactericides as per the bactericide label instructions.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Fireblight.

4.5 Lightbrown apple moth (Leafroller) (Epiphyas postvittana)

Description

Lightbrown apple moth adults are variable in colour and may be confused with other leaf rollers. Males have a forewing length of 6-10 mm with a light brown area at the base distinguishable from a much darker, redbrown area at the tip. The latter may be absent, the moth appearing uniformly light brown, as in the females, with only a slightly darker oblique markings distinguishing the area at the tip of the wing. Females have a forewing length of 7-13 mm, and colour varies from a uniform light brown, with almost no distinguishing markings.

Larval first instar has a dark brown head, while all other instars have a light fawn head and prothoracic plate (plate behind head). Overwintering larva are darker, while the mature larva is medium green with a darker green central stripe and two side stripes. Pupae are at first green, but become medium brown after rapid hardening.

Rule for control

Every occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site in Hawke’s Bay is required to control Lightbrown apple moth (Leafroller) (Epiphyas postvittana) on their land once thirty (30) Lightbrown apple moths are caught in any one Lightbrown apple moth pheromone trap on their land from 15^th December until fruit harvest.

A breach in this rule is an offence under section 154 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Occupiers of pipfruit production sites are therefore required to monitor for and control Lightbrown apple moth.

5.0 Flowchart - implementing the Operational Plan

6.0 Occupiers Responsibilities

All occupiers of pipfruit production sites are expected to monitor for and control phytosanitary pests over their property.

Following an increase in presence of pests the affected occupier will contact the occupier of the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site to seek agreement that they will control phytosanitary pests on their land in accordance with the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan management regime.

When the adjacent pipfruit production site occupier does not agree to control phytosanitary pests, the affected occupier may contact Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association advising them of the problem when monitoring confirms:

· There is a clear difference in the management inputs required to control Phytosanitary pests compared to the previous three years.

· Or monitoring results indicate that the Phytosanitary pest outbreak is more severe along the boundary with the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site.

7.0 Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Responsibility

Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association has the following responsibilities:

· Determining whether the adjacent pipfruit production site occupier has been affected by an increase of the presence of Phytosanitary Pests.

· Assessing monitoring data on the affected managed pipfruit production site to confirm there is a clear difference in the management inputs required to control the phytosanitary pests compared to the previous three years, and/or that the pest outbreak is more severe along the boundary with the adjacent unmanaged pipfruit production site.

· Advising the occupier of the unmanaged pipfruit production site that a complaint has been received regarding their inaction to control phytosanitary pests on the their land, and that Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association are now investigating the issue in accordance with this operational plan and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

· Investigating and seeking agreement for the control of phytosanitary pests.

· Advising the occupier of the unmanaged pipfruit production site(s), that they are deemed to be an exacerbator of phytosanitary pests.

· Assisting occupiers to reach an agreement regarding the control of phytosanitary pests within 14 days, and providing technical support to monitor that the necessary control measures are undertaken.

8.0 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Responsibilities

HBRC will direct and enforce the provisions of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan when all steps have been taken to reach a satisfactory agreement by an independent third party (eg Hawke’s Bay Fruit Grower’s Association), and a satisfactory conclusion has not been achieved.

9.0 Management Options for Controlling Phytosanitary Pests

There are three management options proposed for the control of Phytosanitary Pests:

· The occupier of the pipfruit production site manage at their cost the phytosanitary pests on their land in accordance with current pipfruit industry pest management best practice for either organic or integrated fruit production.

· The occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site allows an affected adjacent pipfruit production site to manage their pipfruit production site in a manner that reduces the level of risk. Costs of control are to be agreed between the two occupiers.

· The occupier of an unmanaged pipfruit production site, at no cost to adjacent managed pipfruit sites, removes their pip fruit trees.

10.0 Enforcement

When a satisfactory conclusion cannot be reached between occupiers HBRC will consider a detailed report prepared by Hawke’s Bay Fruit Growers Association on the unmanaged pipfruit production site.

When a landowner does not adhere to the requirements of the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan, an authorised person may issue directions for the control of Phytosanitary Pests under Section 122 (Notice of Direction) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

On default, HBRC may arrange for the work to be carried out and recover the costs from the land occupier under sections 128 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (Notice of Intention to Act on Default) and section 129 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (Liens).

Criteria for enforcement is set out in each rule for each Phytosanitary Pest. Notices will be set out as per the rule in the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan.

[1] The person making the complaint must be able to demonstrate that the privet affects their health. For example that they live close by, or visit the area on a regular basis during flowering.

	Follow-up/Request	Person Responsible	Status/Comment
1	Resource consents for bottling plants	I Maxwell	A report on the RMA resource consent application and decision-making processes will be provided at the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 20 May in addition to the information provided via email on 4 March (appended following)
2	Hole Punch Facilities	M Hulena	Two hole punches have been supplied; they are located in the Councillor Room and Council Chambers.

Occupier		Owner
First Name:		First Name:
Surname:		Surname:
Property Address:		Property Address:


Postal Address:		Postal Address:


Phone Number:		Phone Number:
Mobile Phone:		Mobile Phone:
j Key Decision Maker		j Key Decision Maker
Signature:
	(Occupier)		(Owner)

	(Date)		(Date)

(Hawkes Bay Regional Council)			(Date)

Plant pest		Time of press release
Chilean needle grass		November 2015
Didymo		January 2016
Woolly nightshade		April 2016
Mothplant		March 2016
Phragmites	March 2016

Plant pest	Limited distribution	Difficult to control	Non-economic benefits
Apple of Sodom	√
Australian sedge	√
Chilean needle grass		√
Cotton thistle	√
Japanese honeysuckle		√
Old man’s beard		√
Pinus contorta		√
Privet			√
Saffron thistle	√
Woolly nightshade	√		√

1	Animal Pest Operational Plan 2015-16
2	Plant Pest Operational Plan 2015-16
3	Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2015-16

1-5% of budget	5-10% of budget	>10% of budget
Privet	Australian sedge	Old man’s beard
Cotton thistle		Pinus contorta
Japanese honeysuckle		Saffron thistle
Apple of Sodom		Chilean needle grass