Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee
Date: Tuesday 13 December 2016
Time: 9.00am
Venue: |
Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street NAPIER |
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict of Interest Declarations
3. Items of Business Not on the Agenda Which Cannot be Delayed 3
4. Environment & Services Committee Chairman's Report 5
Decision Items
5. Biosecurity Working Party Appointments 9
6. Review of use of Heretaunga Plains Scheme River Berm Land 17
7. Ministry for Primary Industry Future of Our Fisheries Submission 21
Information or Performance Monitoring
8. Biodiversity Strategy Implementation 23
9. Waterway Maintenance Approach 25
10. Verbal Update on CHB Waste Water Consents
11. Items of Business Not on the Agenda Which Cannot be Delayed 29
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Items of Business Not on the Agenda Which Cannot be Delayed
Reason for Report
1. Under standing order 9.12:
“A meeting may deal with an item of business that is not on the agenda where the meeting resolves to deal with that item and the Chairperson provides the following information during the public part of the meeting:
(a) the reason the item is not on the agenda; and
(b) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
2. Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.
Recommendations
That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following “Items Of Business Not On The Agenda Which Cannot Be Delayed” for discussion as Item 11:
|
Item Name |
Reason not on Agenda |
Reason discussion cannot be delayed |
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|
Leeanne Hooper GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER |
Andrew Newman CHIEF EXECUTIVE |
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Environment & Services Committee Chairman's Report
Reason for Report
1. This report presents the Chairman’s discussion points and thoughts/perceptions in relation to issues facing the Council and/or the Region.
2. Peter Beaven (as Deputy Chair) and I have begun discussing with Mike and Iain the issues to come before the committee over this term. An initial list is attached for councillors’ additions and comments as to priorities.
3. I would like to move toward E&S Committee agendas having more strategic focus -- e.g., more time in each meeting allocated to a single strategic objective and less ‘hodge podge’ of unrelated reports.
4. I would like to see issues brought forward in a more holistic manner, with consideration of a full range of ‘interventions’, whether the issue involves a major theme (e.g. programme for sediment control) or a significant ‘hotspot’ or opportunity (e.g. Ahuriri or Tutira).
5. The objectives of #3 and #4 need to be supported by a careful selection of workshops and/or field trips.
6. Personally, a high priority is re-examining our role and capabilities for optimizing land use in the region – achieving highest value productivity and resilience, within improved and sustainable environmental parameters.
7. We need to sort out the division of labour as between this Committee and the RPC … the sooner the better.
Decision Making Process
8. As there are no decisions to be made, the decision making process does not apply.
1. That the Environment & Services Committee receives and notes the “Chairman’s Report”. |
Authored by:
Leeanne Hooper Governance & Corporate Administration Manager |
Monique Thomsen Executive Assistant |
Approved by:
Mike Adye Group Manager Asset Management |
|
Agenda items for Environment & Services Committee this term |
|
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Biosecurity Working Party Appointments
Reason for Report
1. At its last meeting on 24 August 2016 considered the attached briefing paper on the review of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan, and recommended the following resolution to Council which was subsequently adopted.
1.1. Endorses HBRC staff taking a proactive role in exploring how HBRC and the Hawke’s Bay region can assist central government in achieving their Predator Free NZ 2050 vision, and specifically consider how HBRC is able to determine the feasibility of wide scale control of predators through inclusion of the concept and appropriate incentives and regulations into the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan for consultation with the community.
1.2. Endorses the further consideration of the inclusion of changes to Chilean Needle grass, privet and feral goats; and the potential inclusion of bees and apiary management, wasps, marine biosecurity and regional coordination for the horticulture sector into the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan through informal stakeholder engagement.
1.3. Endorses the proposed approach and timeline for the Regional Pest Management Plan review, including the establishment of a Biosecurity Working Party, made up of 2 or 3 elected members and an equal number of representatives from tangata whenua, as a subcommittee of the Environment and Services Committee.
2. This paper now seeks to establish the Biosecurity Working Party and the nomination of 3 elected members to participate in that Working Party.
Tangata Whenua Representation
3. Staff have sought input from the tangata whenua Chair and Deputy Chair of the Regional Planning Committee regarding the names of tangata whenua representatives on the Committee. They have yet to advise who their representatives will be.
Terms of Reference
4. The Terms of Reference for this sub-committee be prepared for consideration by the Environment and Services Committee in 2017.
Decision Making Process
5. 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:
5.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
5.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
5.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
5.4. There are no persons directly affected by this decision.
5.5. Council has considered options in previous meetings.
5.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
5.7. 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.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Biosecurity Working Party” 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. 2.1.1. Terms of Reference to be developed and confirmed by Environment and Services Committee 2.1.2. Appoints Councillors x, y and z as members of the sub-committee. |
Authored & Approved by:
Mike Adye Group Manager Asset Management |
|
Regional Pest Management Plan Process, Timelines and Key Issues Paper - 24 August 2016 |
|
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Review of use of Heretaunga Plains Scheme River Berm Land
Reason for Report
1. Staff are currently progressing a review of the levels of service provided by the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme – Rivers. This review focuses on the major rivers crossing the Heretaunga Plains (Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro, Tukituki and Clive), and involves the Scheme and its assets extending from landward toe of stopbank to landward toe of stopbank on the opposite side of each river.
2. The 2015/25 LTP states that “the level of protection in technical terms is to convey a flood discharge with a 1% probability of being exceeded in any one year (1% Annual Excedance Probability (AEP)) safely to the sea progressively increasing to 0.2% AEP over the next 20 years.” The review of flood discharge includes the potential impact of climate change both on river flows and sea level rise.
3. As part of the review of the levels of service staff are commencing a project to explore options for enhancing the key river corridors to provide improved opportunities for public access and enjoyment, improved biodiversity and landscape values, integrated with possible opportunities for low impact commercial activity.
4. This paper provides the opportunity for Councillors to update themselves on this project and seeks endorsement for the approach for investigating opportunities for changing use of the river berm land.
Background
5. The scope of the project to investigate opportunities for changing use of the river berm land includes exploring:
5.1. Opportunities for increased public recreation within the river areas (owned or administered by HBRC), while minimising the risk of conflict between the range of potential recreational activities and any conflicts (e.g. noise) that may arise with neighbouring properties.
5.2. The integration of community aspirations for public use activities with mana whenua that have kaitiaki over the river areas.
5.3. Potential opportunities for enhancing the region’s biodiversity.
5.4. Design and management approaches to reduce the adverse effects and costs of rubbish dumping and other illegal and anti-social behaviour and activity.
5.5. Methods to reduce the adverse and long term effects of undesirable vehicle activity.
5.6. How to balance the increasing (and potentially competing) demands on space for eco-enhancement, cultural aspiration, recreation and flood management.
6. The project must recognise that the primary purpose of the river corridors is to convey water safely to the sea, particularly during times of flood, and thus protecting the built-up and productive Heretaunga Plains land from inundation. Any public use activity must be subservient to this primary purpose. This means that from time to time, river berm land will be covered by flood water, and when this occurs, there will be a need to undertake some work to remove silt from some areas before they are able to be available again for public enjoyment.
7. A key aspect of this project is to explore alternatives to grazing the river banks, driven by increasing public pressure to ensure that stock do not have access to the waterway at any time. Recommendations for any change will assess the cost/benefit of alternative land management options throughout all parts of the project area. Currently grazing leases on river berm land provide an income to the Scheme of approximately $50,000 per year.
8. The project programme is:
8.1. Complete an inventory of all of the current uses of river berm land including all recreational activities (both passive and active), grazing and other commercial activity (e.g. apiary, cropping and gravel extraction), and environmental areas (e.g. wetlands and side streams that have the potential to provide shaded aquatic refuge). This work is expected to be completed by end January 2017.
8.2. Investigate best practice options throughout NZ, and work with public and Māori groups to understand their respective aspirations to find and assess solution options. This work will be presented in the form of a consultation document for public comment and feedback. This document is expected to be completed in July or August 2017.
8.3. Prepare an options report for presentation to Council for consideration and wider public feedback as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process.
Decision Making Process
9. 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:
9.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
9.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
9.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
9.4. No persons are directly affected by this decision, however it should be noted that the project will involve communication with a range of users of river berm land, and will result in an options document for wider public consultation as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process.
9.5. A range of options will be considered as part of the project.
9.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
9.7. 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.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Review of use of Heretaunga Plains Scheme River Berm Land” 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. Endorses the process proposed to review the use and opportunities associated with the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme – Rivers river berm land, being to: 2.2.1. Complete an inventory of all of the current uses of river berm land. 2.2.2. Investigate best practice options throughout NZ, and work with public and Māori groups to understand their respective aspirations to find and assess solution options. 2.2.3. Prepare an options report for the 2018-28 Long Term Plan process. |
Authored by:
Steve Cave Manager Open Spaces |
Gary Clode Manager Regional Assets |
Approved by:
Mike Adye Group Manager Asset Management |
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Ministry for Primary Industry Future of Our Fisheries Submission
Reason for Report
1. On 11 November 2016 the Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) released a document for consultation titled ‘The Future of Our Fisheries’. The purpose of ‘the Future of Our Fisheries’ programme is to ensure there are ‘sustainable, shared fisheries now and in the future’. Submissions on this document which may be found here: https://mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations/future-of-our-fisheries close on the 23 December. Any person may make a submission on the discussion document. This report presents a first draft version of a submission for the Committee’s consideration.
2. The consultation on ‘The Future of Our Fisheries’ programme includes a wider fisheries management review and three strategic proposals: “Maximising value from our Fisheries”; ‘Better Fisheries Information” and “Agile and Responsive Decision-Making”. While these strategic values are fisheries management focused they include outcomes that support wider ecosystem and environmental health and ecosystem based management. These outcomes have a cross over with councils’ responsibilities in the Coastal Marine Area under the RMA (1991).
3. MPI have provided an internet-based form which has a series of questions about specific proposals and values within the programme. This submission only responds to those questions that staff deem are relevant to council work. Specifically:
3.1. Objective 1: Abundant fisheries in our seas and a healthy aquatic environment
3.2. Option 3: Investment in Ecosystem-based management’ and
3.3. Option 4: Use more externally commissioned research’.
3.4. Monitoring fisheries at finer spatial scale.
4. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has not made submissions on previous fisheries policy due to the different regulatory frameworks operating, however recent collaborative projects have highlighted the need for more active consultation/collaboration in areas of overlap. Council staff chair the newly formed Hawke’s Bay Marine Group which is a multi-stakeholder group with many interests in commercial, recreational and customary fisheries. This group is concerned with the state of marine habitats and fisheries that depend on them. Other members of the Hawke’s Bay Marine Group will be submitting on this consultation document.
5. Staff are not aware of a combined LGNZ submission on this document but other councils have been contacted through CSIG (Coastal Special Interest Group) to see if others are considering submissions.
6. The timeframe between this meeting and the submission date is tight (10 days) therefore it is suggested that the submission is currently a draft and the author will work with the Environment and Services Committee Chairman to finalise the submission prior to submission by the 23 December deadline.
Financial and Resource Implications
7. There are no expected financial implications from making this submission.
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 all ratepayers in the Region with an interest in fisheries.
8.5. The options of not lodging a submission has been considered.
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.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “MPI Future of our Fisheries Submission” staff 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 lodge a submission generally following the content of the draft submission set out in Attachment 1, and that the Chairman and Environment and Services Committee Chairman work with Council staff to finalise and lodge that submission by the 23 December 2016 deadline. |
Authored by:
Oliver Wade Environmental Scientist Water Quality and Ecology |
Dr Stephen Swabey Manager Science |
Approved by:
Iain Maxwell Group Manager Resource Management |
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Biodiversity Strategy Implementation
Reason for Report
1. This report provides an update on the implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy.
Background
2. The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (the Strategy) was launched in March 2016. At the launch over 50 agencies, groups, and individuals signed up to the Biodiversity Accord to demonstrate their commitment to the strategy. The Accord is a living document and there has been several new signatories added since the launch.
3. As was the development of the Strategy, its implementation is a community-driven process. An Implementation Planning Group (IPG) representing the interests of the Accord Signatories was formed in June 2016. At the time of writing, the IPG consists of 18 different organisations/individuals including HBRC and an independent chair.
4. The IPG’s focus is on three key deliverables: 1) development of an implementation plan, 2) establishment of a HB Biodiversity Forum, and 3) establishment of a HB Biodiversity Trust. It is intended to deliver 1) and 2) by June 2017. The timeframe for the Trust to be up and running is yet to be discussed.
5. A series of out-reach workshops were held with statutory agencies, tangata whenua, and the conservation community in order to define specific outcomes, intermediate outcomes, outputs and necessary actions. This will form the content for the implementation plan. The IPG will synthesise the workshop findings at its next meeting (scheduled for February 2017).
6. To date, input from the primary sector into the implementation planning process has been limited to representation by Federated Farmers HB on the IPG. Discussion is underway on a tailored approach to engage private landowners, recognising much of the remaining biodiversity is on private land and thus private landowners will have a significant role to play.
7. A sub-group (or working group) from within the IPG has been formed to focus on developing the HB Biodiversity Trust under the guidance of HBRC legal experts. This sub-group will provide advice to the wider IPG to make decisions.
8. The same process of forming a sub-group to focus on developing ideas for the HB Biodiversity Forum is currently under consideration.
9. At present, there is no budget allocated for this work except for $40K for internal staff time. It is intended that a business case outlining the total costs and benefits and cost to HBRC associated with putting the Implementation Plan into action, establishing the Trust and the Forum will be put forward in the 2018 LTP.
Decision Making Process
10. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Biodiversity Strategy Implementation” staff report. |
Authored by:
Keiko Hashiba Terrestrial Ecologist |
Desiree Cull Programme Leader |
Approved by:
Iain Maxwell Group Manager Resource Management |
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Waterway Maintenance Approach
Reason for Report
1. HBRC administers approximately 500km of drainage and small streams under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 through flood control and drainage schemes. Of these approx. 470km cross the Heretaunga Plains, where they were constructed to provide drainage to allow the productive potential of the Heretaunga Plains land to be realised.
2. This briefing paper is to inform the Committee of the issues that the HBRC asset management team deals with associated with these drains, and the associated challenges.
Background
3. The network of drains across the Heretaunga Plains was originally constructed to provide a drainage outlet (both pumped and gravity) to each Heretaunga Plains rural property. Due to subdivision of land this is no longer the case, however the drainage network provides an essential function underpinning the Hawke’s Bay economy. The network also serves as an outlet or stormwater from the urban areas of Hastings, Napier and to some extent, Havelock North.
4. Because of the nature of the network, and the service it provides, many of the drains provide an ideal environment for the vigorous growth of macrophytes (aquatic vegetation), particularly in the warmer months. Water quality in the majority of the drains is poor because of the extensive use of fertiliser and other chemicals to enhance the productivity of the Heretaunga Plains land and many contaminants within stormwater flowing from the urban areas. The water is therefore high in nutrients that provide an environment for dense and rapid macrophyte growth.
5. A significant issue with the poor water quality in some of the waterways, especially those that flow all year round, is the low dissolved oxygen (DO) and high water temperatures. This causes the water body to become stagnant with rotting organic material in it often associated with odours. One way to help reverse this situation is through the use of shading. Trials are currently being carried out in selected areas with some success and some larger scale work is being considered.
6. Shading has shown promise as an alternative, however the establishment of shade is relatively costly, and is not acceptable to some land owners who do not wish to give up productive land or be exposed to increased bird life which will be attracted to vegetation creating the shading. Although shading can also be created through use of artificial wind-break type of fences and overhanging shrubs. Given all the benefits that shading can bring to a waterway, it is possible that they will outweigh the objections. The TANK group are looking at shading options as part of the stormwater plan change to help improve the health of the Heretaunga Plains waterways.
7. The network of drains and waterways are mostly very gently sloping and therefore any impediments to the flow of water can impact on water levels for a significant distance upstream. This in turn can affect the operation of field tiles drains.
8. Water celery, or cow cress, is the main weed that infests these waterways, although there are many other pest species across the region. It grows extremely quickly, wherever water velocities are slow. When water velocities increase, eg. at times of heavy rain, large mats of weed break from its roots and float downstream, quickly forming a blockage wherever it gets held up. At times of low flows, the weed causes water to flow more slowly along the waterway, resulting in raised water levels upstream; and at times of higher flow, blockages quickly result in localised flooding.
9. Maintenance of the drainage network includes:
9.1. The control of this and a number of other weeds.
9.2. Mowing of the drain banks to maintain a dense sward of grass cover to minimise the risk of bank scour.
9.3. Periodic removal of silt and other build up in the drains. Note that this is very disruptive to aquatic communities that live in the bottom sediments and banks and is best avoided or only carried out infrequently.
9.4. Removal of rubbish from drains – particularly in urban areas, and in the vicinity of roads crossing the drains.
10. Currently the most cost effective chemical to control weed growth is glyphosate. This is applied through spray equipment owned and operated by HBRC Works Group. The spray equipment is calibrated annually to ensure that only what is required is applied, and operators hold Grow Safe certificates and operate under a code of practice.
11. HBRC staff regularly deal with land owners that do not favour the use of glyphosate, and have therefore been exploring and trialling alternative methods of controlling unwanted vegetation. This includes the use of alternative chemicals, shading of waterways, and excavation of weed.
12. The most promising alternative to glyphosate is Metsulfuron. This chemical is selective to broad leaved weeds, with grasses not being affected. However Metsulfuron is only approved for use over water on plants that are named in the Regional Pest Management Plan. Water celery and other broad leaved plants that thrive in the waterways are not named in the HBRC Plan and therefore are not able to be used in Hawke’s Bay. The inclusion of these plants into the HB Pest Management Plan will be considered as part of the review being undertaken in the 2017 year.
13. Shading has shown promise as an alternative, however the establishment of shade is relatively costly, and is not acceptable to some land owners who do not wish to give up productive land or be exposed to increased bird life which will be attracted to vegetation creating the shading.
14. Even if HBRC were able to use Metsulfuron, glyphosate would remain an important tool for plants such as Glyceria Maxima which has a rhizome root system. This plant is currently present in a number of locations, but has the potential to rapidly spread throughout the waterways, and if unchecked would dominate all other aquatic plant/fish life and smother stream edge planting; as well as increasing water levels within the waterways and associated flood risk.
15. HBRC uses glyphosate 510, which is more environmentally friendly than the standard glyphosate 360.
Decision Making Process
16. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Waterway Maintenance Approach” report. |
Authored by:
Gary Clode Manager Regional Assets |
|
Approved by:
Mike Adye Group Manager Asset Management |
|
Environment and Services Committee
Tuesday 13 December 2016
Subject: Items of Business Not on the Agenda Which Cannot be Delayed
Reason for Report
This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the Items of Business Not on the Agenda Which Cannot be Delayed resolved to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 3.
|
Item Name |
Reason not on Agenda |
Reason discussion cannot be delayed |
1. |
|
|
|
2. |
|
|
|
3. |
|
|
|
4. |
|
|
|
5. |
|
|
|