Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: KOHUPĀTIKI MARAE - AWA ENHANCEMENT FOR MATATINI

Reason for Report

1. Kohupātiki Marae is requesting assistance from HBRC, in the lead up to the 2017 Matatini, to:

1.1. Improve the state of the river bed adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae and Whakatu

1.2. Ensure water is flowing at a meaningful level in the Karewarewa stream, at Bridge Pa and Pakipaki, in February 2017.

2. Presentations will accompany this report from:

2.1. Kohupātiki Marae will present an overview of the Ngāti Hori Management Plan as well as the significance of Matatini to the regional community. They will also provide an account as to the need to have the awa (river) presented in the best possible state at the time of Matatini.

2.2. To achieve this staff are formulating options for improving the state of the river bed adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae via trials that could then be used in a broader context depending on the trial outcomes.

3. Staff have worked in partnership with Marae representatives to prepare this briefing paper.

Background

Naming Convention of “the awa”

4. The main awa of the Karamu catchment is recognised by different names depending on the location and the history of a particular reach. At Whakatu and Clive the full Māori name of the awa is the ‘Ngaruroro moko tuararo ki rangatira’. Presently most know the river as the Clive or lower Clive, upstream around the confluence of the Raupare it becomes the Karamu Stream and further up the Awanui where the Irongate Stream joins the Karamu. For the purpose of this briefing paper the river will be referred to as “the awa” except at Bridge Pa where it will referred to as the Karewarewa Stream downstream of Raukawa Road, and the Paritua Stream upstream of Raukawa Road.

5. Kohupātiki Marae acknowledges the whakapapa that interconnects them to all those other marae and whanau who belong to the greater Heretaunga takiwa (region).

Ngāti Hori Management Plan

6. In 2012 the Ngāti Hori Management Plan was adopted by Kohupātiki Marae which saw Operation Patiki implemented. This management plan was presented to the HBRC Maori Committee at Kohupātiki Marae in 2013.

7. The plan is based around the following priorities and values of Ngāti Hori in freshwater management:

7.1. Achieving sufficient water flow

7.2. Improving water quality

7.3. Protection and restoration of traditional riparian vegetation

7.4. Protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat.

8. To date, significant work has been completed focusing on protecting and restoring traditional riparian vegetation. This mahi (work) has involved a greater community network including schools, whanau, visitors, friends, sympathetic organisations and local authorities. As a result it is now being replicated at many localities along the awa from the coast to 35 km upstream at Bridge Pa.

9. They now wish to address the other three priorities (7.1, 7.2 and 7.4 above).

10. The whanau of Kohupātiki Marae recognises its responsibility as Kaitiaki and said by Akinehi Paipper “we must ensure freshwater fish species enter and depart in hospitable waters. If they are Happy we are Happy”.

Te Matatini

11. “Te Matatini” is a significant cultural festival and the pinnacle event for Māori performing arts. Held every two years, it is one of the most highly anticipated events for performers, their whānau and the mass of passionate kapa haka fans throughout the world. Hosted in a different city each time, the festival draws thousands of people who come to witness the best of the best.” http://www.tematatini.co.nz/events/

12. Te Matatini also encourages Māori performers to display those issues that are impacting on the lives of Māori whānau today. The quality of the waterways features on many marae agendas nationally, including Kohupātiki Marae.

13. Kohupātiki Marae whānau looks to this project to support their matauranga Māori values, to ensure their kaitiakitanga is practised and achieved for the benefit of all within the Heretaunga takiwa.

14. With Te Matatini coming to Heretaunga in February 2017, Kohupātiki will be one of many host Marae. As hospitality, manakitanga, whanaungatanga are paramount for host marae, Kohupātiki would like their awa (Ngaruroro/Karamu) to reflect their values and Mana. Many of the host marae are located adjacent to awa fed from the Karamu catchment and in particular the Ngaruroro/Karamu.

15. The awa will also be a focus leading into Matatini as part of the dedication of pou to acknowledge "Tanenuiarangi Pa" at the historic site on the right bank, during which time waka are proposed to travel upstream from Clive.

Lower Ngaruroro Scheme History

16. Between 1962 and 1975 a comprehensive flood control scheme involved a complete diversion of the Ngaruroro River starting immediately upstream of what is now Pakōwhāi Regional Park, diverting flow down what was then its overflow channel and combining with the Tutaekuri River at the coast.

17. Prior to the flood control scheme, during the extreme flood event of 1867, the Ngaruroro River changed its course from the Irongate and Karamu Stream through what is now Flaxmere joining the Karamu Stream upstream of Havelock North. The course of the Lower Ngaruroro River downstream of Pakōwhāi was again changed by the HB Catchment Board in the late 1960’s away from flowing past Kohupātiki Marae into the channel it is in today. Isolated sections with gravel substrate remain throughout the old channels, however reduced flow, and sediment and nutrient loading means that aquatic weed and sediment are present throughout much of the lower Karamu catchment including the section of the Old Ngaruroro (Clive) River adjacent to Whakatu and Kohupātiki Marae.

18. Aquatic plant communities cover most of the bed of the lower Karamu catchment year-round. Emergent water celery and watercress extend out from the margins through summer and autumn. HBRC actively controls aquatic plants by periodic cutting by weedboat. This clears the channel of weed but does not impact on their rooting structure and therefore they continue to regrow.

19. The weed boat operates from the Awanui Stream (Turamoe Rd) and the Irongate Stream (Maraekakaho Road) downstream to the Karamu-Raupare Stream confluence (floodgates) 6 to 8 times each year (September to June). The weed boat also operates between the Karamu-Raupare Stream confluence (CS17) downstream to the Farndon Road pump station (CS7) 3 times each year (July/December/March).

20. Land use adjacent to the Old Ngaruroro (Clive) River includes stock grazing, native revegetation, horticulture, industrial, and residential.

21. Cutter-suction dredging and pumping to sea occurred on the lower Old Ngaruroro (Clive) River in 2000 (to approx. 200 m upstream of the Rowing Club, involving approx. 60,000 m³) and in 2010 (to approx. 50 m upstream of the Clive Bridge). The requirement for dredging is subject to a 2 year survey, a design depth of approximately 2m, and is expected to be required every 10-12yrs at a cost of approximately $700k to $800k.

22. Sediment depth varies along the reach downstream of the Raupare confluence to the Clive Bridge. It is estimated that 6,000m³ of sediment is present in a 1km reach of river downstream of Kohupātiki Marae.

Current State of the Ngaruroro

23. Kohupātiki believe the awa is not in a state that will reflect well on the region, marae community and local authorities responsible for the wellbeing of the awa. This is due to many factors; the most urgent relating to sedimentation of the riverbed and aquatic weed growth in the lower reaches and water flow in the upper reaches. These factors do impact on ecosystem health, traditional use and aesthetics.

24. Kohupātiki requests the Council recognise this opportunity to showcase this region in 2017 and take steps in supporting the implementation of work programmes that will enable the awa to be presented in a state all can be proud of.

Options for Improvement

25. Staff have completed preliminary investigations into strategies for removing weed and sediment from the river bed. These are based on either a combination of weed cutting and mechanical excavation via digger, or auger suction via dredge. To fully consider the dredging option a consultant investigation is required. Specifically this investigation is required to confirm;

25.1. practical feasibility

25.2. consent requirements

25.3. disposal options for excavated sediment and weed

25.4. long term viability

25.4.1. ecological and social benefits

25.4.2. rate of re-sedimentation

25.4.3. rate of weed re-invasion

25.5. cost.

26. A full investigation by consultants to prepare a detailed project plan and cost estimate for the auger suction via dredge methodology will cost $30,320. A rough order cost estimate has been supplied by Southwater Dredging and Water Management indicating a cost of $300,000 to remove and dispose of 6,000m³ of sediment over a 1km reach.

27. This work is realistically unable to be completed in time for the Matatini festival, and staff suggest this approach may be one of a suite of possible remediation options considered through the TANK process.

28. For Matatini staff propose a mechanical excavation trial adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae ahead of the "Tanenuiarangi Pa" pou unveiling and Matatini. The experience gained through this trial will assist in confirming the practical feasibility of mechanical excavation of sediment and its impact on weed growth. The immediate outcome of the trial will be that part of the reach of the river bed adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae is sediment and weed free for Matatini.

29. Indicative cost of a mechanical excavation trial over a 200m reach is approximately $25,000 subject to consent and sediment disposal requirements. Note that the proposed work may not extend for the full width of the river.

30. It is further proposed that additional weed cutting and catching of weed upstream of Kohupātiki at the Karamu - Raupare confluence is scheduled prior to Matatini. The cost estimate for this work is $20,000, but this work may be accommodated by adjusting timing for programmed maintenance work.

Recommended Work Programme 2016-17

31. Options for weed and sediment removal with rough order cost estimates are summarised in the table below:

Option	Methodology	Cost
Trial Excavation - Digger	Excavate 100m X 30m reach using Long Reach Digger including sediment and weed disposal Excavate 100m X 30m reach using 12 tonne Digger including sediment and weed disposal	$12,500 $12,500
Extra Weed Cutting & Catching	Extra weed cut over entire length and catch at Karamu / Raupare confluence	$20,000
	TOTAL	$44,500

32. In addition to the above it is recommended that further investigation is undertaken during the 2016-17 financial year for auger suction dredging at a cost of $30,200.

33. The costs for all work proposed can be met through the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Rivers. This Scheme includes the awa (Clive River downstream of the Raupare / Karamu confluence to the sea) and includes budget for the development of a long term capital works programme to upgrade the river flood defences, and a portion of this provision could be diverted to meet this cost.

Water Augmentation at Bridge Pa / Pakipaki

34. Providing an appropriate flow level in the Karewarewa Stream adjacent to Mangaroa Marae at the time of Matatini depends on water being available upstream of the Mangaroa Marae. Options for augmentation of stream flows will be investigated, and developed, if suitable. Any arrangements should be finalised some months prior to Matatini to ensure sufficient water will be available to maintain appropriate flow levels at the time required.

35. Staff are seeking direction from Council on what role HBRC should take in assisting Marae to prepare for Matatini.

Decision Making Process

36. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

36.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers to the Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers, and Marae and their associated communities adjacent to rivers across the Heretaunga Plains

36.5. Options that have been considered are set out in the briefing paper.

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

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

Recommendations

1. The Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Kohupātiki Marae - Awa Enhancement for Matatini” report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2.2. Agrees to staff working in partnership with Kohupātiki Marae to trial excavation of sediment and weed over approximately 200m in the vicinity of the Marae prior to Matatini.

2.3. Agrees to staff working in partnership with Mangaroa Marae and upstream landowners to augment flows in the Karewarewa Stream throughout Matatini.

2.4. Agrees to continue investigations to assess options for reducing the impact of seasonal aquatic weed growth and sedimentation throughout the Karamu Stream and Clive River schemes.

Anthony Rewcastle

Development Officer
Open Spaces

Steve Cave

Asset Manager
Open Spaces

Gary Clode

Manager REGIONAL ASSETS

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: Te Mata Park 10 Year Management Plan

Reason for Report

1. At their meeting on 30 March 2016, Council agreed with the Environment and Services Committee recommendation to:

1.1. Retain the allocation of $500,000 in the Long Term Plan for the Te Mata Park Visitor & Education Centre for the period to 30 June 2016 pending consideration of a final 10 year Management Plan for Te Mata Park to be prepared and presented to Council prior to that date.

2. The Te Mata Park Trust Board has now completed their 10 year Management Plan for consultation with the community. A copy of the Plan is provided as Attachment 1 and 2 for information. Representatives from the Trust will present at the meeting to respond to any queries that the Committee may have.

3. The 10 year Management Plan includes a number of improvement works and indicative costs. The Trust presents the works for which they seek funding from HBRC in the attached (Attachments 3 and 4) Te Mata Park Trust Board Community Facilities Fund Application. In this document the Trust has assessed the projects against the HBRC Community Facilities Fund criteria which has been provided to them by staff.

4. Staff have also assessed these projects against Council’s criteria for Community Facilities Fund applications. This paper sets out that assessment and requests that the Committee recommend to Council which projects they believe should be supported by the fund.

Discussion

5. A copy of the policy for consideration of Community Facilities Fund applications adopted by Council is attached (Attachment 5). Staff have assessed the funding sought against this policy.

6. The following improvement works have been identified by the Trust as potential items for HBRC funding.

	Item	Detail	Indicative cost
1	Main gate development	Loop track	$40,000
2	Safety and way finding signage		$40,000
3	Tauroa Road entrance upgrade	Drinking a rubbish facilities and information signage	$20,000
4	Timber management	Harvesting and replanting of pine blocks	$120,000
5	Tracks	Mountain bike track extensions	$100,000
6	Peak House	upgrade	$110,000
4	Amenity additions - Redwoods	Composting toilets	$70,000
			$500,000

7. The overall project has been assessed against Council’s policy for consideration of Community Facilities Fund applications in the table following.

	Criteria	Assessment
1	The facility must be owned or managed by a Territorial Local Authority or a Council Controlled Organisation, located in the Hawke's Bay region.	Criteria met. Te Mata Park Trust is a CCO of Hastings District Council
2	The facility should be of benefit to the whole Hawke's Bay region or at least of benefit to a significant sub-region (eg: Wairoa or Central Hawke's Bay).	Criteria met. Te Mata Park is well used by the Hawke’s Bay public and visitors to the region
3	The facility should generally have a minimum capital value of $5 million in the instance of Napier City or Hastings District or $500,000 in the instance of Wairoa or Central Hawke's Bay.	Criteria may be met The individual projects are not of the value set by the criteria, however the total value of Te Mata Park is likely to exceed $5m.
4	The fund will support projects to establish or upgrade community infrastructure such as halls, museums, sports facilities, community centres, which are available for use by the community at large	Criteria met for some projects This project is to upgrade a community facility – Te Mata Park, however some projects, e.g. timber management, do not fit this criteria.
5	The fund would not normally support basic local authority infrastructure such as drainage, water supply, sewage or waste disposal or roading.	Criteria met for some projects This project is to upgrade a community facility, however projects for which funding is requested include the installation of composting toilets and drinking water supply.
6	The fund would contribute to capital costs of facilities but not to operating costs	Criteria met for some projects The majority of projects are for capital items, however harvesting of the pine block does not fit this criteria. It is not clear how operating costs for the additional facilities for which funding is requested are to be provided for. Eg Peak House

Other criteria

	Criteria		Assessment
7	The project should demonstrate local community support through the applicant’s LTCCP or Annual Plan process.	Criteria met The Trust is not a local authority, however it has been through an extensive consultation process with the Hawke’s Bay community to develop its 10 year plan from which the projects have been identified.
8	The sponsoring TLA must undertake responsibility for maintenance and renewals, preferably with depreciation funded	Criteria not met Hastings District Council is not taking responsibility for maintenance and renewals of all projects for which funding is sought. This is discussed in more detail under 8 - 13 below.
9	The Regional Council should be satisfied that management and/or governance of the facility will be competent	Criteria met Te Mata Park Trust Board is a CCO of Hastings District Council.
10	The Regional Council would expect the sponsoring Council to be directly funding or have receiving funding for at least 75% of the value of the project and the Regional Council would in no instance contribute more than 50% of the cost of the project	Criteria may be met The total value of proposed capital works as set out in Appendix 2 is in the order of $2,000,000 with a proposal that these are funded from funders including HDC, NCC, HBRC and grant funded. Te Mata Trust are requesting HBRC to fund 100% of some items.
11	The Regional Council would normally conduct no more than one funding round in each financial year and allocate in total in each funding round no more than that recommended by the Council's Chief Executive	Criteria met It is proposed that appropriate provision is included in the 2016-17 Annual Plan, and subsequent plans depending on the proposed timing for the projects.

8. With reference to individual projects set out in Attachments 3 and 4, staff assessment against the criteria is set out in the table below.

	Item	detail	Comment
1	Main gate development	Loop track (Indicative cost $40k)	May be considered as part of track upgrades/ extensions)
2	Safety and way finding signage	Design and production ($40k)	May be considered as part of track upgrades/ extensions)
3	Tauroa Road entrance upgrade	Drinking water, bins, information boards, native amenity planting etc ($20k)	Does not strictly fit criteria 5, however is part of the overall upgrade of Te Mata Park facilities.
4	Timber management	Harvest planning and harvesting Replanting (120k)	No details have been provided on cost of harvest vs revenue, or plans for post-harvest planting. This appears to be an operational item.
5	Tracks	Mountain bike track extensions Installation of safety and wayfinding signage ($100k)	Upgrading/ extension to tracks could be considered as major upgrade to Te Mata Park.
6	Peak House	Upgrade to accommodate alternative uses ($110k)	No clarity provided for use, and no information provided on ongoing operational and depreciation costs
7	Amenity additions	Composting toilets ($70k)	Does not fit criteria 5, however toilets are installed in open space areas managed by HBRC.

9. Criteria 8 requires that the sponsoring TLA must undertake responsibility for maintenance and renewals, preferably with depreciation funded. HBRC has increased its annual contribution to Te Mata Park Trust in its 2015/25 LTP to $65,000 per year to fund operational costs. Te Mata Park Trust utilise this money employ a park caretaker.

10. As far as staff are aware no financial provision is made by Te Mata Park Trust for depreciation of current assets/facilities, and therefore their replacement at the end of their useful life. No information has been provided regarding potential increases in operational costs associated with the facilities for which funding has been requested.

11. Staff understand that currently HDC maintain roads within the Park, including the summit car parking area, and also roads and carparks that service the Park. In addition staff understand that HDC will commit to ongoing cleaning and maintenance of toilet facilities proposed as part of the main gate development. Staff also understand that the annual contribution by HBRC is the only funding available for other routine operational costs.

12. Staff are unable to advise whether or not the current level of operational funding is adequate to maintain the Park and associated facilities to a defined level of service. Staff recommend that Council partner with Te Mata Park Trust to develop an asset management plan for the Park. The park asset management plan would define the level of service that the Park would provide for its visitors and stakeholders and identify work that is required to maintain the Park to provide the defined level of service.

13. The completed Park asset management plan would then allow the necessary long term costs for managing and maintaining the Park to be better defined, and options on how that management and maintenance could best be delivered to be considered.

Decision Making Process

14. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

14.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation, and was included in the consultation on the 2012-22 Long Term Plan.

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

14.4. No persons are directly affected by this decision.

14.5. Options are either to carry-over all or part of the funding for the Te Mata Park Trust to 2016-17, or to decline the request of the Trust to do so.

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Te Mata Park 10 Year Management Plan” report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Considers the request to fund work set out in the Te Mata Park proposed capital works programme and agrees whether or not to fund each of the following items with funding being sourced from Council’s community Facilities Fund.

	Item	Detail	Year	Indicative cost
1	Main gate development	Loop track	2016-17	$40,000
2	Safety and way finding signage	Design and production	2016-17	$40,000
3	Tauroa Road entrance upgrade	Drinking water, bins, information boards, native amenity planting etc	2016-17	$20,000
4	Timber management	Harvest planning and harvesting Replanting	2017-18 2018-19	$120,000
5	Tracks	Mountain bike track extensions Installation of safety and wayfinding signage	2016-17	$100,000
6	Peak House	Upgrade to accommodate alternative uses	2016/17	$110,000
7	Amenity additions	Composting toilets	2017-18	$70,000

2.3. Proposes to Te Mata Park Trust that the two organisations work in partnership to develop a Park asset management plan to inform its ongoing operational needs. The plan would include estimated long term costs for managing and maintaining the Park, and options on how that management and maintenance could best be delivered and funded. It should be noted that the cost of this work may be sought by the Trust through a submission to the HBRC Annual Plan 2016-17.

Steve Cave

Asset Manager
Open Spaces

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

1	Te Mata Park Management Plan May 2016	Under Separate Cover
2	Te Mata Park Management Plan Appendices May 2016	Under Separate Cover
3	Te Mata Park Trust Board Community Facilities Fund Application
4	Te Mata Park: Proposed Capital Works Programme 2016-2020
5	Policy for Consideration of Community Facilities Fund Application

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: Upper Tukituki Scheme Review

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the Committee with an update on:

1.1. Gravel issues on the Upper Tukituki rivers

1.2. A review of the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme rating review, and

2. The paper is presented in two parts covering the above issues.

3. The paper:

3.1. Updates the Committee on what specific action is currently underway seeking solution(s) to deal with the impact that river bed gravel accumulation is having on some land adjacent to stopbanks, and;

3.2. Seeks a decision on whether or not Council should proceed with reviewing the basis for setting targeted rates levied to either fund the current level of service for the Scheme, ie the ongoing maintenance and improvement for flood protection purposes, or fund an increased level of service including additional gravel management measures.

Background

4. Over the past several years staff have discussed with Upper Tukituki Scheme ratepayers a number of issues regarding the Upper Tukituki Scheme and the state of the rivers that are managed as part of the Scheme. These issues include the following:

4.1. River bed levels – specifically the build-up of gravel in some rivers and the impact that is having on their properties which neighbour the rivers.

4.2. Increased ground water levels and the challenges of maintaining productive land through increased on farm drainage costs.

4.3. The potential impact of climate change and the risk to the level of flood protection provided by the Scheme;

4.4. The amount paid in targeted rates to fund the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the Scheme, and whether or not individual ratepayers are receiving fair value for the rates that they pay.

5. A community focus group was formed in 2015 to assist HBRC work through these issues. The group last met on 1 March 2016. No further meetings of the group have been arranged, however staff are keen to continue to work with the group. The decisions made by Council in considering this briefing paper will allow staff to provide the group with an intended programme and timelines to address the range of above issues.

Gravel

Background

6. The report (Upper Tukituki Catchment Control Scheme, Investigations and proposed Scheme, G J Williams August 1985) upon which the Upper Tukituki Scheme as we know it today was based, recognised that a sustained increase in the rate of gravel extraction would be needed to control the aggradation of gravel. The report states that “the removal of excess bed material is the only feasible option in the controlled (confined by river control works and stopbanks) reaches of the rivers. Extraction must continue indefinitely.”

7. There is a significant source of sediment feeding the rivers of the Ruataniwha catchment. Of these the Waipawa and Upper Tukituki rivers and their tributaries contribute the largest quantities of sediment, in particular gravel. Excessive gravel build-up in the river beds can present a risk to the flood protection scheme due to loss of flood carrying capacity and/or increased risk of damage to live tree edge protection which confines the “active channel” of the river.

8. Figure 1 illustrating the “active river channel”

9. Gravel extraction together with beach raking are used to manage the river bed levels within reaches of rivers where there are river control schemes but in recent times with a downturn in the economy the demand for gravel has fallen quite severely in the Upper Tukituki Scheme rivers. Since 2008/2009 the annual volume of gravel extracted from all of the Upper Tukituki Rivers has fallen substantially, from in excess of 100,000m³/year to less than 20,000m³.

10. Gravel is extracted by commercial extractors at no cost to the Scheme.

11. A number of property owners who pay targeted rates to fund the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme have complained that the accumulation of gravel in some of the Upper Tukituki rivers is resulting in elevated ground water levels on their properties, or increased flood frequency, both of which are adversely impacting on the productivity of their land. Particular concerns have been expressed by land owners adjacent to the Tukituki and Makaretu Rivers.

12. Attached to this briefing paper as Appendix 1 is a map showing the locations of cross sections that are regularly surveyed on the Upper Tukituki rivers. Cross section locations are referred to later in this report. Cross sections are re-surveyed every 3 years where gravel is extracted and every 6 years elsewhere. The data is used to monitor flood capacity in the rivers, and to determine availability of gravel for extraction.

13. Figures 2 and 3 below graph the volumes of gravel extracted annually from the Upper Tukituki River and the Waipawa River since 1994. These graphs show clearly the significant downward trend in extracted volumes since 2008/2009.

14. It should also be noted that the majority of the gravel extraction from these rivers occurs in the vicinity of SH 2 and SH 50 as these locations are easily accessible by extractors and travel distances are minimised between the point of extraction and point of use. River reaches away from easy access points are the worst affected by gravel build-up.

15. Figure 2 – Gravel volumes extracted from Upper Tukituki River between 1994 and 2015

average

42,682

cubic metres/year

16. Figure 3 - Gravel volumes extracted from Waipawa River between 1994 and 2015

average

61,895

cubic metres/year

17. Data collected over the period 1994 to 2014 has been analysed for the Waipawa River and the Upper Tukituki River.

18. Figure 4 below for the Waipawa River shows that there has been a decrease in the above grade gravel availability from a peak of nearly 2 millionm³ down to about 1.5 millionm³ and the average (net) availability has reduced from approx. 1,600,000m³ to approx. 1,000,000m³ over the 20 year period from 1994 to 2014. It also shows that increased extraction has occurred below grade from 0.1 millionm³ to 0.5 millionm³ reflecting the fact that extraction has been concentrated in reaches nearest access to main roads. The overall trend shows that gravel extraction and other river management activities (eg beach raking) has resulted in an overall reduction in the total gravel quantity above the ideal grade line.

Figure 4: Waipawa Gravel Trends.

19. It should be noted however in terms of Mean Bed Levels that in 1995 the average bed level above grade was 0.47m and below grade it was -0.19m and a net of 0.37m. In 2012 the average bed level above grade was 0.60m and below grade it was -0.38m and a net of 0.23m. This means that the situation in areas where gravel is accumulating is worsening.

20. Similarly for the Upper Tukituki there has been a small reduction in above grade gravel availability but a small increase in the average (net) trend of gravel above the ideal grade line by about 250,000m³ over the 20 year period, with the below grade volumes recovering from -0.9 million m³ to -0.5 million m³.

21. Figure 5: Upper Tukituki Gravel Trends.

22. In terms of Mean Bed Levels the Upper Tukituki River shows similar trend to the Waipawa River with the average bed level in 1995 above grade by 0.35m and below grade by -0.27m, compared with the average bed level in 2015 being above grade 0.48m and below grade -0.34m and a net of 0.03m.

23. Gravel availability assessments prepared in 2015 clearly show the locations where there is surplus gravel. While the quantity of surplus gravel is greater in the Waipawa River, staff have received little enquiry from ratepayers adjacent to the Waipawa River regarding elevated water levels impacting on their land. The majority of this sort of enquiry has come from landowners adjacent to the Upper Tukituki River upstream of its confluence with the Tukipo River and downstream of Burnside Road.

24. Figures 6 and 7 – Gravel availability in Waipawa and Upper Tukituki Rivers

25. From the above it can be concluded that gravel extraction and other maintenance activities, such a beach raking, has generally been sufficient over the past 20 years to maintain gravel in the Upper Tukituki and Waipawa rivers without a significant increase in the overall quantity, however because extraction has not occurred uniformly throughout the length of these rivers, a surplus of gravel is continuing to accumulate in some areas.

Options for addressing reaches in gravel surplus

26. There are two possible approaches to increase the amount of gravel extracted from sections of the rivers where gravel is continuing to accumulate.

26.1. Approach 1 – Require or encourage commercial extractors to extract the gravel at no cost to the Scheme. Legal advice received indicates that HBRC does not have the legal ability to direct extractors to specific areas where extraction is required. This approach, if a legal mechanism is or could be available, could result in an increase in transport costs for extractors, which they in turn would expect to recover through an increased cost of their product.

26.2. Approach 2 – HBRC or others extract the excess gravel from reaches where the accumulation is impacting on adjacent properties.

Approach 1

27. It is imperative for Council to have an effective framework for the ongoing management of the gravel resource within the region, supported by robust science and processes. This was the subject of a paper to Council on 09 November 2010 where a scoping report was presented that outlined the issues and proposed a way forward.

28. The scoping report identified the issues associated with the current management of the region’s river bed gravel resource that when completed would:

28.1. Improve Council’s understanding of riverbed gravel transport and the impact of gravel extraction on flood protection works and coastal processes.

28.2. Enable Council to review its management regime for assessing the gravel resource and for managing its extraction.

28.3. Examine the future demand for the resource working with the extraction industry.

28.4. Inform co-management discussions with regard to the gravel resource and its management with Treaty Claimant Groups.

29. The scoping report adopted by Council included a prioritised programme of work that could be accommodated in a 6 year time span. This work is programmed for completion in 2016-17. The last update to Council on this programme of work was provided to the Environment and Services Committee at their meeting on 15 December 2015.

30. The table below shows the progress to date and target completion dates.

Issue No.	Issue	Completion date	Target date for completion
1	Hydrological review	2011-12	Completed
2	Gravel Supply and Transport	Begun and ongoing	June 2017
3	Gravel Resource Inventory	2015	Completed
4	Implications for Flood Protection		October 2016
5	Gravel Demand and Forecast	2014	Completed
6	Gravel Monitoring & Determination of Resource Availability	Begun 2015	Completed
7	Instream Ecological Effects	Underway, due 2015*	June 2016
8	Riverbed Birds and Flora	Underway, due 2015*	June 2016
9	Tangata Whenua Values	Ongoing	June 2017
10	Effectiveness of Beach-raking	2013	Completed
11	RMA Issues	Commenced	Draft in August 2016
12	Allocation and Financial Mechanisms	Commenced	Draft in August 2016
13	Riverbed Gravel Management Plan	Staff may be able to bring completion date forward, but this will depend on the outcome of 11 and 12	June 2017

* Items 7 and 8 were put on hold to fit in with the consultant’s work programme

31. Issue No 11 and 12 relate directly to Approach 1. Legal advice has confirmed that HBRC does not currently have the legal ability under its current Regional Resource Management Plan or gravel allocation process to direct extractors to take gravel from river reaches where gravel is currently accumulating. Item 12 above includes a review to identify an approach that would address this. This work was originally intended to be undertaken during the 2017 calendar year but has been brought forward in order to inform options to deal with gravel issues on the Upper Tukituki Scheme rivers.

32. The work has been commissioned and will be completed over the next few months. It will involve a thorough evaluation of an optimal permitting system for gravel extraction and an investigation of a range of plausible options for managing river bed gravel to achieve a balance between flood control needs, the avoidance of unintended consequences such as extractors moving to land based sources, and the financial and practical issues for extractors operating in a competitive market. Staff are working towards the possibility of updating Committee members on this work through a workshop session immediately following the next E&S Committee meeting programmed for 24 August 2016.

33. The final stage of the gravel review programme will be the development of a Riverbed Gravel Management Plan. This Plan will be a non-statutory document, and will have a series of recommendations for its implementation. These may include recommendations for changes to the current consenting regime and/or HBRC’s Regional Resource Management Plan.

Approach 2

34. Removing the surplus of gravel from the reaches where it is impacting on adjacent properties is an option. While it will be relatively easy to commission a contractor to undertake the necessary work, the question is who should pay?

35. Indicative costs are estimated to be

35.1. $5.50/m³ - $6.50/m³ to remove gravel from above the water level and transport approx. 750m. This would require the material to be deposited on private land in the vicinity of the stopbank and would therefore require land owner agreement.

35.2. To transport greater distance would substantially increase the cost. If it was to be removed by an extractor and transported to their plant for processing an indicative cost of over $17/m³ has been provided

36. Landowners between cross section 45 and 60 on the Upper Tukituki River (see Figure 6 above) are adversely affected by high ground water levels and are very keen to explore ways to reduce the gravel accumulation in this reach of the river. Figure 6 shows that the gravel accumulated in this reach totals approximately 350,000 m³ above the ideal grade line for the river. This equates to a cost of $2,100,000 if the material were to be removed to a stockpile close to the river, or over $6M if it were to be transported to Heretaunga Plains.

37. Alternatively if an annual programme of extraction of say 20,000m³ were to take place that may be sufficient to reduce the accumulation over time. The cost could be in the order of $120,000/year if there was agreement from adjacent landowners to stockpiling the material on their land.

38. An issue for any of these options will be who should pay? As stated in paragraph 6 at the time of establishment of the Scheme no provision was included for gravel extraction. At that time it was envisaged that gravel extraction would need to continue utilising commercial gravel extractors. Therefore there is no provision within the rates collected to fund the scheme to meet any additional costs associated with gravel extraction.

39. The options therefore available are for the land owners affected, or for the Upper Tukituki Scheme (and therefore all Scheme ratepayers) to meet the cost of extraction.

40. It should also be noted that while the focus in this briefing paper is on the Waipawa and Upper Tukituki Rivers, landowners adjacent to the Makaretu River are also experiencing additional flood risk to their land as a result of gravel accumulation. As this part of the Scheme is not stopbanked, flood flows flow across adjacent land depositing gravel and other debris and damaging crops.

Allocation of rates

41. The Upper Tukituki Scheme has an annual budget for maintenance, administration and improvement of approx. $850,000 /year. 17.5% of this is sourced from general rating sources, and the remaining 82.5% is funded from a targeted rate levied on properties the benefit from the Scheme.

42. The targeted rates are levied on the basis of a classification system that was developed and introduced in the late 1980’s under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.

43. Currently the scheme includes 6,351 properties; has a total targeted rate take of approx. $690,000 (+ GST).

44. The table below gives an indication of the level of targeted rates individual properties receiving benefit from the Scheme are paying:

Ratepayers paying greater than $16,000 incl GST	2
Ratepayers paying greater than $1,000 incl GST	125
Ratepayers paying greater than $100 incl GST	905
Ratepayers paying less than $100 incl GST	5320

45. The current basis of rating for the Upper Tukituki Scheme was for flood protection and did not include provision for extraction of gravel. If Council determines that the Upper Tukituki Scheme should meet the cost of extracting gravel, then this will be an additional service provided and accordingly the current basis of rating should be reviewed to provide a fair and equitable basis for the costs to be distributed. This will require a complete review of the basis of rating for the Scheme.

46. While current legislation is not as prescriptive as previous legislation in terms of the range of issues for consideration in determining a rating system, it is implicit in its expectation that Council will make judgements on the fairness and equity of rating systems as part of their decision making.

47. Since the current basis for rating allocation was developed in 1985 there has been ongoing changes in land use (particularly around the urban fringe), changes to maintenance techniques, approaches and priorities; and if the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme proceeds there could be considerable changes to land ownership, land value (determined by productive potential) and land use. In addition a number of anomalies in the current rating Scheme have been identified during the work undertaken on this review to date.

48. In addition rating legislation has changed since the original classification was developed. Under the previous legislation the basis for rating was aligned to benefit received. While this principle remains, new legislation requires the basis of rating to be aligned to the service provided to the property. Accordingly significant adjustments to rating Schemes established under previous legislation cannot be made.

49. For these reasons staff believe it would be prudent for Council to review the basis of rating for the Scheme to ensure that the allocation of rates was fair and equitable to all ratepayers. Staff propose that such a review would be funded from the “Central and Southern Rivers and Streams Scheme” (project 278) which is funded 90% from a targeted rate on all ratepayers within Hastings District Council, Central Hawke’s Bay District and Napier City Council areas, and 10% general funding.

Other issues

50. Members of the Upper Tukituki community have raised concerns that the accumulation of gravel is a result of a slug of gravel moving down the river, and over time this will migrate further downstream reducing the flood capacity of the Scheme in the vicinity of Waipukurau. While there is evidence of ongoing accumulation of gravel occurring in specific reaches of the Rivers, there is no evidence to suggest that this will over time impact on the flood risk to Waipawa or Waipukurau. Flood models show that the Scheme has the capacity to convey a flood likely to occur on average once every 100 years. In addition the river bed in the vicinity of both Waipawa and Waipukurau are currently below their ideal grade because of the easy access for gravel extractors from SH 2.

Summary

51. Gravel is accumulating in some reaches of rivers administered by HBRC as part of the Upper Tukituki Scheme.

52. HBRC does not have the legal ability to require gravel extractors to take gravel from these areas, under its current gravel allocation process.

53. Staff are progressing a review of the gravel management framework and is exploring options for changing the gravel allocation process to meet current Council, community and extractor needs. This work is expected to be completed in 2017.

54. The current basis for allocating the ongoing cost of maintaining and improving the Upper Tukituki Scheme is unlikely to provide a fair and equitable allocation of costs to remove the gravel if the work was to be undertaken by the Scheme and funded by an increase Scheme rates to meet the cost of that work.

55. A full review of the basis of rating (ie who benefits and who should pay) in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 would be prudent to ensure that the basis of rating is fair and equitable.

Decision Making Process

56. 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:

56.1. The decision may require a significant alteration to a service currently provided by Council.

56.2. The use of the special consultative procedure may be required to progress this issue, however further work will be required before that stage is reached.

56.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance, however it is noted that any subsequent decisions as a result of the study to increase the level of service on the Upper Tukituki Scheme or to change the basis of rating from which the Scheme is funded will have a significant impact on the ratepayers to the Scheme and would require a special consultative process.

56.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers of the Upper Tukituki Scheme.

56.5. Options that have been considered to date are set out in the briefing paper, however further options may need to be considered if further work is required.

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Upper Tukituki Scheme Review” report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Notes that Council does not have the necessary legal ability to require gravel extractors to take gravel from these areas, under its current gravel allocation process.

2.3. Notes that work relevant to the management and extraction of gravel from the region’s rivers is progressing and parts of the project specifically relevant to gravel allocation to commercial extractors has been commissioned and is currently in progress, and staff are working towards the possibility of updating Committee members on this work through a workshop session immediately following the next E&S Committee meeting programmed for 24 August 2016.

2.4. Requests staff to provide an indicative programme and cost to undertake a review of the basis of rating for the Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme for consideration by Council as part of their deliberations on the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Upper Tukituki Scheme Review Map

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan

Reason for Report

1. This report refers to the management plan for the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. This report recommends that Council adopt the management plan as attached.

2. As part of this Management Plan long term financial predictions have been developed for income and outgoings from the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve fund. Outgoings include annual transfers to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū catchment fund required by the Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū Claims Settlement Act. This report recommends that Council agree to the proposed rate of transfer for the period of this management plan.

Financial and Resource Implications

3. The Management Plan includes a 40 year estimated cashflow for the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve which shows the cashflows for planned operational costs and harvesting revenues for the Reserve, including an annual transfer of funds to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū catchment fund.

4. It should be noted that estimates include predictions about the net income that the Reserve will realise from harvesting areas as they mature. These predictions can vary significantly depending on the market at the time, and the cost of harvest.

5. In 2020 harvesting is programmed for 96ha of forest within the Reserve. A net income of $1,334,200 excluding replanting costs is predicted from this.

6. The financial modelling spreadsheets show that for the period of this Plan an annual transfer of $100,000 plus an adjustment for inflation to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū catchment fund is sustainable.

7. While the credit balance in the Reserve fund is predicted to increase from $3,774,384 as at 1 July 2015 to $3,850,458 as at 1 July 2021 this is as a result of the harvest income programmed for 2020. In subsequent years ongoing operation costs will need to be met from the Reserve fund with sporadic income. The modelling is sensitive to harvest income, inflation and interest rates, and therefore staff recommend that it is regularly reviewed together with the quantum of money available to transfer to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū catchment fund.

Decision Making Process

8. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

8.4. The persons affected by this decision are Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū and crown as owners of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve, Department of Conservation as neighbours and co- developers of the walkways traversing the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve.

8.5. Options that have been considered are set out in this management plan and previous briefing papers and reports on this subject

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

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

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan” report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Adopts the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021.

2.3. Agrees to transfer $100,000 in the 2016/16 financial year, and in subsequent years $100,000 per annum plus a cumulative inflation allowance, from the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve fund to the Maungaharuru-Tangitū catchment fund until the 2020/21 financial year, after which the annual amount may be reviewed.

James Powrie

Team Leader Natural Assets

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: Biosecurity Operational Plans for 2016-17

Reason for Report

1. Council is the management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Pest Management Plan – RPMP) and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy (now Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan - RPPMP). Section 100B of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that the management agency for a pest management plan prepare and review the operational plan for each Plan annually. Operational Plans have been prepared for both the RPMP and RPPMP and are appended to this paper for Committee reference and are available to other parties on request.

2. Staff believe that the current operational plans have proven to be effective and therefore with the exception of wide scale predator control only minor changes from the 2015/16 plans are proposed.

3. The HBRC Regional Pest Management Plan review is proposed to begin in mid-2017. Staff will be initiating a range of stakeholder groups on key issues within the next 2-3 months.

4. This agenda item seeks Council adoption of the 2016/17 operational plans.

Comment

Regional Pest Management Plan

5. Key RPMP work programmes included in the 2016/17 operational plan include:

5.1. The control of possums within urban areas. This programme is proving to be very successful with bellbird numbers trebling and Tui quadrupling within the urban areas monitored.

5.2. The implementation of stage two of the Cape to City wide scale predator control has begun. Already there are some clear transformational opportunities for predator pest management within the region arising from the project.

5.3. The transition of approximately 50,000 ha of TBFree New Zealand possum control vector management areas to ongoing maintenance under HBRC’s Possum Control Area programme.

6. Attached are the Pest Management Operational Plans 2016/17.

Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan

7. There has been no requirement for Council to undertake any activities under the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Plan. No changes are proposed to this operational plan. The Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Operational Plan is attached.

Decision Making Process

8. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

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

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

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

8.4. Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (sec 100B), Council is required to review its operational plans annually.

8.5. The operational plans must be consistent with the pest management strategy they are prepared for, and therefore will only affect persons to an extent that has already been considered by Council through the process of developing the existing pest management strategy.

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

Recommendations

1. The Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Biosecurity Operational Plans for 2016-17” report.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

3. In accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 adopts, after the inclusion of any amendments made as a result of the Committee’s consideration, the:

3.1. Animal Pest Operational Plan 2016-17

3.2. Plant Pest Operational Plan 2016-17

3.3. Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2016-17.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

1	Animal Pest Operational Plan 2016-17
2	Plant Pest Operational Plan 2016-17
3	Phytosanitary Operational Plan 2016-17

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 11 May 2016

Subject: Cape to City Update

Reason for Report

1. The Cape to City project, which along with its sister project Poutiri Ao o Tane, commenced in early 2015 and will continue over a 5 year period at a total cost of $6.1 million. In December 2014 Council approved funding of $1.5m from biosecurity budgets over a five year period for Cape to City and Poutiri Ao o Tane. Other funders include Aotearoa Foundation, Landcare Research, Department of Conservation and Cape Sanctuary.

2. The project is potentially transformational both in terms of biodiversity and community engagement. The two most significant impacts on NZ and HB’s unique biodiversity are plant and animal pests and loss of habitat. Part of the project is designed to see if predator control can be integrated into HBRC’s possum control area programme. If successful it will act as the large scale predator pest layer that can sit alongside other HBRC and community biodiversity restoration initiatives such as riparian planting.

3. Achieving a number of the outcomes in the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy will only be possible if a cost effective way of reducing the impact of predators on our native fauna and flora can be found and implemented. This combined with habitat restoration is another key element of biodiversity recovery.

4. This report updates Council on the Cape to City project. Campbell Leckie, project manager, for the project, will provide a presentation to the meeting on the project and the range of items below.

National engagement and alignment

5. There is significant national interest in Cape to City and Poutiri Ao o Tane projects. The project manager and members of the project governance group are working with a number of interested agencies, groups and individuals. These include the Minister of Conservation, Director General of the Department of Conservation, key farming industry figures, Local Members of Parliament, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council, local SPCA, Zero Invasive Predators (ZIP), the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge (BHNSC) and Predator Free New Zealand Trust.

Cape to City project workstreams update

Pest management

6. The pest management workstream includes the full scale field trial of cost effective widescale predator control (feral cats, mustelids and hedgehogs) integrated into possum control across 26,000 ha. If successful, integrated predator control could be considered as part of the Regional Pest Plan Review which is proposed in mid to late 2017.

7. Initial predator control in Cape to City is underway now in the first of three control zones. There is strong landowner support for the programme and significant numbers of predators and in particular feral cats are being caught.

8. Hastings District Council is providing resources for plant pest management in key areas of reserves within the project footprint.

9. The pest management workstream is also leading (alongside Taranaki, Greater Wellington and Horizons regional councils) an initial scoping study about the application of predator control across multiple regions on two million hectares of the central and southern north island.

Habitat restoration and enhancement

10. Significant habitat restoration and enhancement forms part of the project. The majority of this is along the riparian margin of the Maraetotara River where historically HBRC have undertaken significant willow clearance and fencing. This programme has been done in collaboration with the Maraetotara Tree Trust who have funded and undertaken planting with land owner support. Fifty thousand native trees will be planted this winter with the planning proceeding to double that next winter.

11. An opportunity is being explored with the honey company Comvita. This opportunity is considering the possibility of joint investment in high performance Manuka plantations that will potentially drive multiple economic and environmental benefits for the region in steeper hill country.

12. A partnership is developing with the “Trees that Count” project funded by the Tindall Foundation. Trees that Count will fund some of the 2016 planting project for the Cape to City project. A more detailed update on this will be provided to Council over the next few months.

13. There are a number of other restoration opportunities being developed within the project including working with Waimarama Marae, and the provision of habitat for whitebait spawning areas.

Research and monitoring

14. There is a significant commitment to research and monitoring within the project. The combined research budget for the 15-16 and 16-17 financial years will be $1.5m.

15. Cape to City has become one of a small number of “partner” projects to the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge.

16. A significant amount of applied research is being undertaken including largescale trap network optimisation, the application of motion sensitive camera technology, and assessing predator / prey responses such as the risk of rabbit number increases post predator control.

17. A range of outcome monitoring programmes are in place including:

17.1 Lizards and invertebrates including comparing conventional invertebrate monitoring to soil DNA monitoring

17.2 Birds including generalist species such as Tui, bellbird and kereru and also rare and threatened species outflow from Cape Sanctuary

17.3 Whether the incidence of the disease Toxoplasmosis can be reduced in the wider landscape through the large scale reduction of feral cats

17.4 Public engagement surveys for urban and rural residents.

Community engagement / Education

18. A launch has been undertaken for landusers within the project at the Waimarama hall.

19. A range of education programme initiatives with schools and the EIT are underway.

20. A range of initiatives are underway to build Maori engagement into the project including representation on the project team, marae meetings and a proposed larger hui in the next few months.

21. A website http://capetocity.co.nz/ and Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/capetocity have also been set up to assist with public engagement with the project.

Species restoration

22. The opportunity to restore a range of species to mainland Hawke’s Bay will be available if the predator control and habitat enhancement undertaken under the project is successful.

23. Species translocations proposed include:

23.1 Tomtits and robins into the Mohi Reserve on the Maraetotara Plateau within the next 3-4 months

23.2 Kiwi onto the Maraetotara Plateau farms within the next two years

23.3 Whio (Blue duck) onto the Maraetotara River within the next 4 years subject to key resources being secured.

The Project

24. The map attached as Attachment 1 shows the areas involved in the projects.

Governance

25. The project governance group is made up of

25.1. Andy Lowe, land owner including part of Cape Sanctuary

25.2. Bruce Wills,

25.3. Richard Gordon, CE Landcare Research

25.4. Tania Hopmans

25.5. Reg Kemper from the Department of Conservation

25.6. Mike Adye

Decision Making Process

26. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

28.5. 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.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Cape to City Update” report.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

Cape to City Map

	Agenda item	Follow-up item	Person Responsible	Status/Comment
1	Follow-ups	Gravel Management Review Timetable Tukituki Gravel Issues	M Adye	Paper to the Environment & Services Committee 11 May 2016.
2	Follow-ups	A Land Science Update report covering soil monitoring and molybdenum would be provided at the next E&S meeting.	I Maxwell	Paper to the Environment & Services Committee 11 May 2016.
3	Follow-ups	Visit from PCE to talk about Oil & Gas Exploration regulation	L Lambert	No response since last report.
4	Otane Wastewater Resource Consent Application	A further update requested on the ground water quality at the next meeting.	M Miller / I Maxwell	The data relating to this investigation is still not available as the investigation is ongoing. When this information is available a paper will come back to the Committee updating on groundwater quality.
5	Lake Tutira Science Update	Circulate a copy of Dr Hick’s presentation with the draft minutes.	M Thomsen	Completed, circulated on 23 March 2016.
6	Lake Tutira Science Update	Present to the 12 April 2016 Maori Committee meeting.	A Hicks / I Maxwell	This item was presented to the Maori Committee on 12 April 2016.
7	Resource Use Update	Introduce the new Harbourmaster to the Committee.	W Wright / I Maxwell	The Harbourmaster will attend the next Committee meeting and present his work.
8	Te Karamu Enhancement Strategy and Operational Plan	Circulate before and after photos of the Te Karamu Enhancement.	A Rewcastle / S Cave	Attached for information.

1	Follow Up Items from the Previous Environment & Services Committee
2	296-081 Te Karamu Enhancement Before & After Photos 1972-2015