Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

Meeting of the Environment and Services Committee

Date: Wednesday 13 September 2017

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. Confirmation of Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 12 July 2017

4. Follow-ups from Previous Environment & Services Committee Meetings 3

5. Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda 7

Decision Items

6. Future Management of Water Takes on the Heretaunga Plains 9

7. Panpac Application for Direct Referral to the Environment Court 13

8. Gravel Management Plan and Environmental Code of Practice Adoption 19

9. September 2017 Public Transport Update and Fare Review 21

Information or Performance Monitoring

10. Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Planning Group Wrap-up (9.15am)
and Next Steps 25

11. HBRC Ahuriri Integrated Catchment Management Plan &
(11am) NCC Ahuriri Master Plan 69

12. Verbal Update on Freshwater Improvement Fund Applications / Environmental Hotspot Projects

13. Stormwater Management Update 71

14. Whakatu Weed and Sediment Control Trial 77

15. Management of Public Use of River Berm 81

16. Tūtira Regional Park Pine Forest Update 85

17. Operational Activities Update 89

18. Discussion of Items Not on the Agenda 97

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Call for Items of Business Not on the Agenda

Reason for Report

1. Standing order 9.12 states:

“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.

Items not on the agenda may be brought before the meeting through a report from either the Chief Executive or the Chairperson.

Please note that nothing in this standing order removes the requirement to meet the provisions of Part 6, LGA 2002 with regard to consultation and decision making.”

2. In addition, standing order 9.13 allows “A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.”

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following “Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 18.

1.1. Urgent items of Business (supported by tabled CE or Chairpersons’s report)

Item Name

Reason not on Agenda

Reason discussion cannot be delayed

1.2. Minor items for discussion only

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE & CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION MANAGER

Liz Lambert

GROUP MANAGER
EXTERNAL RELATIONS

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Future Management of Water Takes on the Heretaunga Plains

Reason for Report

1. As part of the TANK plan change work programme, scientific modelling undertaken by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council scientists has indicated that the effects of current groundwater takes from the Heretaunga aquifer is at the limit of what is environmentally acceptable.

2. The purpose of this paper is to outline a proposed approach to the management of groundwater take consents on the Heretaunga Plains in light of our new understanding of the resource and ahead of the development of the new rules for inclusion in the TANK Plan change.

Background

3. Modelling has shown that groundwater takes in the Heretaunga Plains have a cumulative stream-depleting effect on lowland streams and on the Ngaruroro River. Interconnection and transmissivity mean all groundwater takes combine to affect surface water flows in surface water bodies across the Plains. The current pattern of water take has resulted in groundwater levels that are at equilibrium and recover every year. However if usage was to increase stream-depleting effects would worsen and groundwater levels would reduce further in some areas to the detriment of surface and spring flows.

4. There are no specific groundwater allocation limits for the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system. The TANK Stakeholder Group has agreed that water use should be capped at current levels. The Group is also investigating the use of flow augmentation to mitigate against effects on lowland streams.

5. The Group has not yet resolved whether or not these measures will be enough to protect both groundwater and surface waters in the Heretaunga Plains. Until such time as these decisions are considered, and for the purpose of providing clarity to current and potential consent holders and applicants, a range of measures are proposed to be implemented by Consents staff to ensure consistency in the management of groundwater takes in the Heretaunga Plains.

Resource Consents – Allocation and Utilisation

6. There are approximately 1,780 consents to take groundwater from the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer. Some of these takes (~200) are considered to be ‘stream depleting’ and are managed with minimum flows.

7. Allocation is the annual volume of groundwater authorised for abstraction by resource consents.

8. It is estimated that approximately 180 million m3 of water is allocated to these consents for abstraction each year. As not all of the consents have annual abstraction limits set through conditions of consent, this estimate is based on a number of assumptions. For example, the annual volume allocated to irrigation consents is derived as the consented weekly volume taken over 150 days (i.e. a 150 day season). The allocation estimate is likely to be conservative (high).

9. Utilisation of groundwater is the volume that is abstracted either by pumping or by drawing artesian water from a well. Metered data was used to quantify utilisation for public water supply and industrial takes. The utilisation for irrigation was estimated using irrigation demand modelling that was informed by a sample of representative water-meter data. Other categories of water (stock, domestic and frost protection) were estimated from available information. For the Heretaunga Plains, the utilised volume varies annually, but has averaged 78 Mm³/yr for the past 10 years and peaked at approximately 90 Mm³/yr during the 2012-2013 hydrological year.

10. Groundwater modelling results indicates a strong connection between groundwater and surface water bodies, across the Heretaunga Plains. The estimated abstraction that occurred in 2012/213, is assessed as having caused significant effects on the flows of tributaries of the Karamu Stream and the Ngaruroro River. These surface water bodies are already considered to be fully allocated under existing regional plan policies. If abstraction were to increase to the allocated level, adverse effects would be even more significant.

Options

11. Do nothing until Plan Change is developed i.e. continue to issue consents within the current framework.

11.1. Given our state of knowledge such an approach would be inconsistent with fulfilling our responsibilities for the sustainable management of the groundwater and surface water resources.

11.2. Processing consents on a non-notified basis, given the information now available on the scale of cumulative adverse effects does not meet the requirements of the notification provisions of the RMA.

11.3. It would not support the TANK Stakeholder Group’s unanimous support for a cap on further takes.

11.4. There is the potential for a rush of consent applications for groundwater takes ahead of any new rules coming into effect. Such a rush would extend the difference between a sustainable allocation and the consented allocation and make future “clawbacks” more challenging.

11.5. This option is not recommended.

12. The preferred option is to provide for the interim management of groundwater resources in the Heretaunga Plains through the following approaches, distinguishing between existing resource consents and new resource consents:

Existing resource consents

12.1. Existing resource consents for groundwater takes can be exercised within the conditions set when the consent was issued (or any subsequent review of conditions).

12.2. A consent holder can use more water than previously, provided the take is within the maximum rates and volume set out in the consent document and providing the take is for the purpose set out in the consent document and, in the case of irrigation, does not exceed the soil moisture deficit.

12.3. Should a resource consent expire before new rules are in place they may be replaced for up to the same amount, although it is likely that greater scrutiny may be made of the need for the amount that is applied for.

12.4. Changes to existing consents that do not increase the overall annual allocation or increase actual use may be able to be granted. For example, amendments to rates of take or weekly abstraction volumes will not increase the annual allocation, increase actual abstraction or cause additional stream depletion effects. In some highly connected areas, increases in short term rates and volumes may increase stream depletion effects, and this will need further assessment at the time of an application.

Stock or Domestic Water takes

12.5. Takes for an individual’s stock and/or domestic needs on the property are able to continue to occur without the need for a resource consent, in accordance with the Resource Management Act.

Permitted Activity Takes

12.6. The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) allows for a permitted activity take of up to 20m3/day to be taken for use on a property. It is not proposed to change this at this stage, although it may be adjusted during the Plan Change process.

Frost protection takes

12.7. Takes for frost protection may continue as consented and a case may be put for taking water for frost protection purposes for existing horticultural activities.

Transfer of existing consents or parts of consents

12.8. Where a property is sold and the transfer is to the new owner the consent can be exercised as before.

12.9. If a take is proposed to be transferred to another property in its entirety or if it is proposed to divide a consent and transfer unused water to another property or use then the transfer is likely be declined as it will lead to increased water demand and use. (There may be circumstances where no more than the current recorded use will occur, indicating no change in existing effect.)

New applications for groundwater take resource consents

12.10. If a resource consent application was received by Council prior to 18 August it will continue to be processed as done previously.

12.11. Any new resource consent application that had been the subject of discussions with HBRC before 18 August, and which the applicant can demonstrate has involved a reasonable capital or tangible investment, will be processed. If consent is granted conditions will be included to identify that:

12.11.1. The consent will be subject to review when the TANK plan change becomes operative if the Plan Change sets limits that are exceeded.

12.11.2. The consent may be subject to a lower priority when the Plan Change takes effect and/or may be issued for a shorter period to reflect the uncertainty of this water being taken longer term.

12.12. Any resource consent application which is not covered by either 12.10 or 12.11 will be required to provide scientific evidence that the allocation of the water sought can be made without adding to the current cumulative adverse effect of takes on the Heretaunga Plains aquifer and on the connected surface flows. In practice. This may be difficult to demonstrate. These applications will be notified.

12.13. This is an interim approach for dealing with new applications until such time as the TANK Plan Change has legal effect. It is anticipated that, consistent with the NPS FM (2017), the TANK Plan Change will set groundwater and surface water allocation limits. If these are less than what is currently allocated then this is likely to include methods for reducing allocation over time so that specified allocation limits or targets are met within a specified timeframe. It is also anticipated that methods such as storage and augmented releases may be developed to offset some of the effects of abstraction enabling a smaller reduction in the overall allocation, and potentially allowing for more water to be allocated.

Financial and Resource Implications

13. Applying this interim approach is likely to reduce the allocation of more groundwater from the Heretaunga Plains aquifers. This approach is unlikely to have a direct cost on Council, but it will impact on parties who do not have a water permit but would like to obtain one and then develop their land/business to utilise this. Parties are not prevented from applying for a resource consent but it is likely that there will be significantly greater cost for them to go through the resource consent process, including providing evidence to justify their application being granted and notification and hearing costs. There is now a significant risk that they will not be able to obtain a resource consent. Costs to Council could eventuate if decisions to decline applications are appealed.

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

14.3. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA, and particularly in the TANK catchments.

14.4. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan (e.g. RRMP Policies 24, 25, 44, 77 and Table 11. The scientific modelling has now demonstrated that aquifer allocation limits have been reached.

14.5. 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.

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Future Management of Water Takes on the Heretaunga Plains” 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. Endorse the proposed approach for the interim management of groundwater resources in the Heretaunga Plains outlined in section 12 of this report.

Authored by:

Paul Barrett

Principal Consents Planner

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Panpac Application for Direct Referral to the Environment Court

Reason for Report

1. PanPac has requested that their current resource consent applications (CD170262W and CL170267O) be determined by the Environment Court instead of the Regional Council.

2. The Regional Council must decide whether to allow this request for direct referral or not.

Assessment

3. The resource consents permitting PanPac to operate their existing ocean discharge and also their extended ocean discharge at Whirinaki are due to expire on 31 December 2017. PanPac has applied for new resource consents to replace these. They have also applied for a resource consent to replace the current consent for the outfall structure to occupy the sea bed. These applications have been publically notified and a total of 13 submissions have been lodged. The application now needs to proceed to a hearing.

4. PanPac as the applicant, may request under s87D RMA that this application be referred directly to the Environment Court. Under s87E the Council must decide on this request and advise PanPac of their decision within 15 working days of receipt of their request. This request was received on Tuesday 29 August 2017, (within 5 working days of the submission period closing). The Council has until 19 September 2017 to provide its decision.

5. There is no delegation for this decision. Council must decide whether or not to allow this request.

6. A copy of the application is provided in Attachment 1, to this report. This includes further outline of the consultation process PanPac followed leading up to these applications. They consider that there is still a strong likelihood of appeals if the applications are heard first by a Council appointed panel. Also they point out that the matter has already been before the Environment Court and they have addressed many of the issues being raised. PanPac seeks to minimise the need to relitigate these issues.

7. PanPac indicate that they would be receptive to alternative dispute resolution procedures preceeding a hearing. Council staff would be available to assist in this process if the Court supports this.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

8. Tangata whenua are submitters to this application and have expressed their opposition. This process will not prevent them from being heard in relation to this matter.

Financial and Resource Implications

9. Regional Council staff are required to remain involved in the process. The costs of their involvement will be charged to the applicant.

Decision Making Process

10. 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:

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

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

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

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are the parties who have submitted on the applications by PanPac and all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA. However the decision will not reduce or diminish the opportunity for submitters to appear and be heard.

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

10.6. 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

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Receives and takes note of the “PanPac Application for Direct Referral to the Environment Court” staff report.

2. Approves the request by PanPac to allow the direct referral of this application to the Environment Court.

3. Decides to exercise its delegated powers to make a decision that will have the same effect as the Council could itself have exercised or performed, and that the decision deserves urgency due to requirement to meet Statutory timeframes for these types of decisions, and the decision is carried unanimously.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

⇩1

PanPac Direct Referral Application

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Gravel Management Plan and Environmental Code of Practice Adoption

Reason for Report

1. To present the final Hawke’s Bay Riverbed Gravel Management Plan and the Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works (2017) for adoption. Both documents are attached electronically to the agenda, under separate cover, and due to the size available in hard copy upon request only.

Development

2. The Hawke’s Bay Riverbed Gravel Management Plan (GMP) and the Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works (2017) (COP) were developed and presented publicly through a special consultative procedure, beginning with public notices on 1 April and 4 April 2017.

3. Submissions closed on 5 May 2017. A total of 9 submissions were received. There was general support for the GMP with the exception of one submitter who opposed it in part. The COP received mixed comment mainly relating to improvements to the document. One submitter opposed the COP in part.

4. It is worth noting the amount of positive input and support we have received from the key gravel extractors in the region, DOC, and Fish & Game.

5. Three submitters indicated they wished to be heard at any hearing that would be held, although they were receptive to discuss matters and if possible reach agreement and avoid the time and costs associated with a hearing.

6. Staff have met with the submitters to discuss outstanding concerns and make where appropriate, small changes to improve the content and readability of both documents. All issues have now been resolved, without the need for a hearing and the documents are ready for adoption by Council.

Strategic Fit

7. The GMP and COP are key documents for Council staff to manage our rivers and waterways in an environmentally acceptable way. They provide a description and guidance on what activities constitute a Permitted Activity in accordance with Rule 70 of the Regional Resource Management Plan.

8. Currently HBRC Asset Management is applying for global consents to extract gravel from the major scheme rivers. The GMP and COP will be a key part of the management methods for the consents.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

9. At the 15 March 2017 Environmental & Services Committee meeting advice was sought on the best approach to inform iwi of the proposed plan and code of practice. As a result the taiwhenua representatives were contacted with the offer to meet and discuss.

10. As a result, one meeting was requested and held with Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea.

Financial and Resource Implications

11. There are no financial implications to consider.

Decision Making Process

12. 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:

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

12.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation. (Note that the special consultative procedure was used to consult with the public in accordance with the Statement of Proposal).

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

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

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

12.6. 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 “Hawke’s Bay Riverbed Gravel Management Plan and the Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works (2017)” staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Adopts the Hawke’s Bay Riverbed Gravel Management Plan and the Environmental Code of Practice for River Control and Waterway Works (2017).

Authored by:

Gary Clode

Manager Regional Assets

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

⇨1	Hawke's Bay River Gravel Management Plan 2017		Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Environmental Code of Practice for River Control & Waterway Works 2017		Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: September 2017 Public Transport Update and Fare Review

Reason for Report

1. This report provides the Committee with an update on Council’s public transport operations and seeks a recommendation to Council in relation to the review of fare levels on the Napier-Hastings bus services.

Napier-Hastings Bus Service General Information

2. The 2016-17 financial year ended with a small decrease in passenger numbers compared with the previous year. However, bus improvements were introduced in late September 2016 and when the nine months Oct-June are compared with the previous year, a 1.5% increase in patronage has been achieved.

3. The District Health Board (DHB) has now introduced a discount for staff using the bus, as part of its travel plan. It is hoped that providing cheaper fares for staff will help to encourage bus use and reduce parking congestion at the hospital.

4. The DHB patient travel scheme on Hawke’s Bay buses is now extended to patients travelling from any part of the Napier –Hastings area to any DHB facility. Usage has increased by over 100% in the six months the scheme has been operating.

5. Services entering Hastings from the west have been having difficulty keeping to time due to traffic congestion and the need to travel via Hastings Street to enter the new bus terminus in Eastbourne Street, which has added over half a kilometre to every route. A minor route change to remove buses from the busier section of Heretaunga Street is being trialed and may help to alleviate this a little.

Review of RPTP

6. A review of the Regional Public Transport Plan is due to be complete by June 2018. This will commence in October with a review of the requests for new public transport services or improvements that we have received over the last three years.

Bus Passenger Trips

7. Diagram 1 shows monthly bus passenger trips for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17.

Diagram 1 – Monthly Passenger Trips 2012-13 to 2016-17

Bus Service Costs

8. The following diagram shows the annual net cost (after fares and excluding GST) of operating the goBay bus service for the years 2012-13 to 2016-17.

Diagram 3 – Annual net cost (ex GST)

52% of this cost is met by the New Zealand Transport Agency).

Fare Recovery

9. Fare recovery is the portion of the total cost of the service that is covered by fares (including SuperGold payments from central government). The fare recovery rate is affected by the cost of the contract and the amount of revenue received from passengers and other sources.

Diagram 4– Fare Recovery Rate – 2012-13 to 2016-17.

2012-13	34.26%
2013-14	38.24%
2014-15	38.94%
2015-16	37.78%
2016-17	38.49%

Total Mobility

10. The following tables compare the number of Total Mobility(TM) trips made for the year to date over the last five years, and the corresponding costs (excl GST).

11. The number of TM trips and the cost of the service has increased for the year to date after two static years. As the population of Hawke’s Bay is not only increasing but also ageing at a faster rate than previously predicted, this growth is to be expected.

Diagram 5 – Total Mobility Trips – 2012-13 to 2016-17

Diagram 6 – Total Mobility Cost ($ excl GST) 2012-13 to 2016-17

(60% of this cost is met by the New Zealand Transport Agency)

Review of Bus Fares

12. NZ Transport Agency policy requires regional councils to undertake a review of bus fares, discounts, concessions and ticket types annually.

13. Bus fares were last reviewed at the June 2016 meeting of the Corporate and Strategic Committee and resulted in three changes.

13.1. Reduction of the two-zone cash fare between Napier and Hastings from $5.40 to $4.20 (and the goBay smartcard fare from $4.28 to $3.65) to match the two-zone fare on the express services.

13.2. Introduction of a Clive zone boundary, resulting in passengers travelling to/from Clive to/from anywhere on the goBay network, paying only a one-zone fare. (The other zone boundary on the network is EIT, which sees passengers travelling to/from EIT to/from anywhere on the goBay network paying only a one-zone fare).

13.3. Introduction of concessionary fares on the express services (Routes 10 and 11), making express fare categories comparable with all other routes.

14. The last fare increase of 3.6% came into effect in September 2014. However, since then, the NZTA Cost Index for Public Transport (which is used to adjust contract prices for inflation) has risen by only 1.8%, and our new contract costs have decreased substantially. The new contract commenced on 1 August 2016.

15. Current fare details are set out in tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 - Single Trip Cash Fares

	*Adult*	*Tertiary Student/Community Services Card*	*Child/High School Student/ Senior*
1 zone	$3.60	$2.40	$1.80
2 zone	$4.20	$3.60	$3.00

Table 2 – Single Trip goBay Smartcard Fares (approximately 20% cheaper than cash fares)

	*Adult*	*Tertiary Student/Community Services Card*	*Child/High School Student/ Senior*
1 zone	$2.88	$1.90	$1.43
2 zone	$3.65	$2.86	$2.14

16. Children under five travel free. Children aged 5-15 and High School students (in uniform or with student ID) are eligible for a concessionary fare as shown in tables 1 and 2 above.

17. EIT students travelling to/from EIT, to/from anywhere on the goBay network, pay only a one-zone fare, as EIT is a zone boundary. (A single smartcard trip to/from EIT from either direction is $1.90 with EIT student ID).

18. Passengers travelling to/from Clive, to/from anywhere on the goBay network, pay only a one-zone fare, as Clive is a zone boundary. (A single adult smartcard trip to/from Clive from either direction is $2.88).

19. SuperGold cardholders travel free between 9am and 3pm Monday to Friday and anytime on weekend/public holiday services. The NZ Transport Agency reimburses HBRC for these fares.

20. On 24 July 2017 the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board commenced a six month trial staff discount scheme, giving employees reduced fares to and from HB Hospital or Napier Health Centre. HBRC will be reimbursed the fare difference.

Fare Revenue

21. The bus service collected $1,328,012 in fares (excluding GST) from all sources during 2016-17. This equates to a 38.5% fare recovery rate. (Fare recovery is the portion of the total cost of the service that is recovered from fares.) The net cost (after fares) of operating the service in 2016-17 was the lowest it has been in seven years, although more services are now operated.

Discussion

22. Our recommendation is that the fares and fare structure remain unchanged for the 2017-18 year for the following reasons:

22.1. The cost of providing public transport, as measured by the NZTA Cost Index for Public Transport, has increased only very marginally since the last fare increase.

22.2. The annual net cost of our bus contract in 2016-17 was the lowest it has been in seven years.

23. In a period of static or declining patronage such as we have recently experienced, a fare increase could further increase the perceived “cheapness” of taking the car. Public transport best practice aims to set bus fares favourably against the cost of operating a car. In a period of low petrol prices, a fare increase could undo the recent modest increases in patronage.

24. We therefore suggest that bus fares, discounts, concessions and ticket types should remain unchanged, with a further review in a year’s time.

Decision Making Process

25. 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:

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

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

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

25.4. The persons affected by this decision are bus passengers in the region.

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

25.6. 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 September 2017 Public Transport Update and Fare Review” staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Agrees to maintain bus fares at current levels, with a further review to be undertaken in September 2018.

Authored by:

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Planning Group Wrap-up and Next Steps

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2050. In particular, it signals the completion of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2020, and seeks the Committee’s endorsement of this document, noting that the logic maps and other figures are in the process of being designed.

2. The report also updates the Committee on other major milestones and next steps, including:

2.1. Winding-up of the Implementation Planning Group and transition to the Biodiversity Guardians

2.2. Appointment of the Biodiversity Guardians’ leadership including the Chair, Deputy Chairs, Secretary and Treasurer

2.3. Appointment of interim Trustees for the Biodiversity Foundation

2.4. Employment of a Biodiversity Strategy Project Manager

2.5. Securing support via the Long Term Plan

2.6. Official launch of the Guardians and Foundation.

3. Connie Norgate, the Operations Manager of the Hawke’s Bay DOC office was recently appointed as the Chair of the Biodiversity Guardians. As such, Connie will make a presentation on this report at the Committee meeting.

Background

4. The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (the Strategy) was launched in March 2016. The Strategy is the first time in our region’s history that people involved in biodiversity work have taken stock and agreed that something better needs to be done. It recognises that biodiversity decline has adverse consequences for the health and wealth of the people of this region, and that we all have a role to play in the long-term solutions. Voluntary and willing participation is a cornerstone of the Strategy, as is the unique and critical role that Māori have in the management, restoration and sustainable use of indigenous resources.

5. 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 have been several new signatories added since the launch. Since then the Strategy has been widely distributed and well received.

Implementation Planning Group wrap-up

6. An Implementation Planning Group (IPG) comprising about 30 organisations/individuals representing the interests of the Accord Signatories was formed in June 2016. HBRC facilitated this process and held the pen for the Group.

7. The IPG was fortunate to be chaired by Emeritus Professor Charles Daugherty. He acted as an independent chair for the IPG and brought considerable knowledge in his field of Zoology as well as relevant experience in establishing foundations and accessing funding from his experience running the research fund at Victoria University and his Directorship on Zero Invasive Pests (ZIP).

8. The IPG’s focus was on three key deliverables:

8.1. development of an implementation plan

8.2. establishment of a HB Biodiversity Trust

8.3. establishment of a HB Biodiversity Forum.

9. The IPG held its final meeting on 3 August 2017. At this meeting, the IPG adopted the Action Plan, appointed the interim Trustees for the Foundation and set in motion the establishment of the Biodiversity Guardians. Through these actions, the IPG has established the enduring organisational, financial and social infrastructure required to support the implementation of the Strategy to 2050.

10. The success of the group and its achievements have to a large degree been based on the goodwill and commitment of the IPG members (and agencies) over and above their day jobs. It was recognised early in the process that the intensity of meetings and work load would need dedicated resourcing and structure going forward. The Action Plan sets this out in detail supported by the employment of a Project Manager to oversee the delivery of the Action Plan.

Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Action Plan, 2017-2020

11. The Action Plan is a companion document to the Strategy. Like the Strategy, the Action Plan is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder document. It is a regional plan, not a regional council plan and therefore the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is being asked to endorse it rather than adopt it.

12. This Action Plan shifts the focus from goal-setting to implementation. It aims to:

12.1. set the priorities for the coming three years to guide our collective biodiversity effort and investment in order to achieve the strategic goals set in the Strategy

12.2. clarify for the parties involved what is to be done, by when and what resources are required

12.3. provide a base against which to measure progress and ensure our actions are making a difference

12.4. give the parties involved and the wider community the confidence that we have a well-considered plan of action to deliver our shared vision

12.5. encourage others to engage in biodiversity activities.

13. The Action Plan has six priority actions. These six actions along with indicative dates for completion and the size/scale (and secured funding, if any) are:

Action	Project scope	Milestones	Secured funding
2017.1	Ecosystem mapping and ecological prioritisation	Completed 30-Dec-17	$60,000 (HBRC)
2017.2	Development of a cultural framework and survey of taonga sites	Pilot completed 30-Dec-18
2017.3	Establish Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Guardians and Foundation	Launched 13-Nov-17 $3M endowment by 2022 $10M endowment by 2028	$47,000 for 2017/18 (HBRC) $tbc (DOC)
2017.4	Develop statutory agencies biodiversity working group to cover and co-ordinate policy and operational best practice	4 meetings per year starting 2017	Agency staff time
2017.5	Establish a Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Forum	Inaugural event 2017 2 events per year	$3,000 for inaugural event (HBRC)
2017.6	Develop a process for proactive approaches to private landowners.	Plan agreed by Guardians by 30-Jun-18

Biodiversity Foundation

14. Significant progress has been made in establishing a Foundation (action 2017.3 in the Action Plan). The Foundation will be a formally constituted Charitable Trust and the legal entity holding funds (project money and a perpetual endowment).

15. The goal of the Foundation is to grow a $50M+ endowment enabling it to administer funding allocation rounds to support biodiversity restoration in Hawke’s Bay. To achieve this long term goal, the IPG has set a pathway which involves securing $3M in 5 years and $10M in 10 years. Critical success factors in these early years include:

15.1. local government financial support and leadership for establishing the endowment

15.2. initiating projects immediately (i.e. in the next 1-2 years) in each of the districts within Hawke’s Bay

15.3. appointment of well-connected and high-profile trustees with special capacities to advance the goals of the Strategy, Foundation and grow the endowment

15.4. employment of a Project Manager with specialist skills to support the Trustees to market and grow the endowment.

16. To get people excited about the Foundation visible on-the-ground projects are essential. The Action Plan identifies the four possible projects (subject to more investigation and the ecosystem prioritisation exercise which is underway):

16.1. Predator Free Mahia Peninsula (Wairoa District)

16.2. Lake Whatumā (Central HB District)

16.3. Ahuriri Estuary (Napier City)

16.4. Tangoio Mountain to Sea (Hastings District)

17. A Trust Deed is in the final stages of completion and will outline the membership, process for appointment of Trustees, meetings, and purpose and powers of the Foundation. It will specify a minimum of four and maximum of nine Trustees with the necessary skills to achieve the goals of the Foundation. Trustees will have the responsibility to ensure that the perspectives of tāngata whenua, the primary sector and science are represented in the Board’s membership, either among the Trustees by right or by additional members co-opted on to the Board. Trustees by right will include:

17.1. The Chair of the Guardians

17.2. One nominee of the Guardians, subject to approval by the Foundation’s board

17.3. The Chief Executive of HBRC or his/her nominee

17.4. One member representing the perspective of local or central government.

18. At its final meeting, the IPG appointed interim Trustees to govern the Foundation until June 2018, by which time formal appointments will be made:

18.1. Chair of the Biodiversity Guardians – Connie Norgate

18.2. HBRC nominee

18.3. Charles Daugherty

18.4. Des Ratima

18.5. Mike Halliday

18.6. David Allan.

Biodiversity Guardians

19. The Guardians is the successor body to the IPG. As mentioned earlier, the leadership of the Guardians was agreed and all IPG signed up at the IPG’s final meeting. The leadership team consists of:

19.1. Chair: Connie Norgate

19.2. Co- Deputy Chairs: Dr Ameila McQueen, Marie Taylor

19.3. Secretary: Biodiversity Strategy Manager (tbc)

19.4. Treasurer: Kay Griffiths.

20. The Guardians will be a formally constituted Incorporated Society, engaged in oversight and advancement of the Strategy. It will be formally linked to the Foundation through appointment of Trustees and providing technical advice on projects. Another key role will be overseeing, guiding, and supporting the Biodiversity Forum, and developing funding to support Forum activities. In effect it will serve as a governance group for the Forum.

21. Two tiered membership fees (from $20 for individuals and $1000 for corporates) will primarily help support the operation of the Guardians and the Forum. If membership fees exceed operational requirements, the balance will be transferred to the Foundation, for community-based biodiversity projects or to grow its endowment.

Biodiversity Strategy Project Manager

22. All the six priority actions in the Action Plan rely, to varying degrees on the employment of a dedicated resource – the Biodiversity Strategy Project Manager – to take responsibility for required tasks.

23. In the medium to long term, it is intended that the Project Manager will be an employee of the Foundation. Given the Foundation is in its infancy, and the next 6 months are crucial in securing funding via Long Term Plans, the Project Manager will be employed by HBRC using the bulk of the $50,000 of dedicated funding for biodiversity secured via the 2017/18 Long Term Plan. The Project Manager will be responsible for applying for other funding to leverage the $50,000 and extend the role.

24. A job description for a fixed-term Project Manager is in the process of being developed with the aim to employ someone in the next 6-8 weeks. This person will report to the Land Services Manager, Campbell Leckie and work closely with the leadership of the Biodiversity Guardians.

25. The balance of the $50,000 will be used to support the inaugural Forum event and communications (e.g. design and print of the Action Plan, creation of a Biodiversity website to act as a home for the Forum, brochures and flyers, and a promotional video to support funding applications).

Support via the Long Term Plan

26. Local government funding from each of the five councils within Hawke’s Bay will be sought through their 2018-2028 Long Term Plans to kickstart the endowment. Funding will also be actively sought from other sources such as the central government, corporates, philanthropists and crowd-funding. This will be the key task of the Project Manager.

27. To achieve the goal of a $3M self-sustaining Foundation within 5 years, the IPG has assumed combined local government funding of $2M with the remaining funding leveraged from a mix of central government, corporate, philanthropic and other funding sources. Proportional funding requests will be made to the five Hawke’s Bay councils.

28. On 31 July 2017, an initial meeting was held with Hawke’s Bay Regional, Napier City and Hastings District Council staff to test support for the proposal. Another meeting with a wider group of council staff is proposed within the next two months in time to include funding in draft budgets for the Long Term Plan.

Official launch of the Action Plan, Foundation and Guardians

29. The Action Plan, Biodiversity Guardians and the Foundation will be officially launched on the night before the Transforming Biodiversity – Challenging the Boundaries Conference on 13 November 2017 at an evening with Hawke’s Bay businesses. This will be an ideal time to promote the goals of the Strategy and secure funding for the endowment and/or projects. Charles Daugherty will also present on the Strategy and Action Plan on behalf of the IPG at the Conference.

Decision Making Process

30. 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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Receives and notes the “Implementation Planning Group Biodiversity Strategy Wrap Up and Next Steps” staff report

2. Endorses the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2020.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Keiko Hashiba

Terrestrial Ecologist

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

⇩1

Draft HB Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2020

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: HBRC Ahuriri Integrated Catchment Management Plan & NCC Ahuriri Master Plan

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with an update on the activities occurring within the Ahuriri Catchment.

Ahuriri Estuary Hotspot Project Plan

2. In 2016 Council was presented with a report detailing the current state and trends of the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries. The report summarised the water and sediment quality, ecology and habitat, and highlighted several areas where scope exists to improve the values associated with the Ahuriri and Waitangi estuaries through upstream freshwater management.

3. There are a number of regulatory bodies working within the Ahuriri Estuary, and currently no integrated, collaborative plan exists for Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu. Statutory agencies have previously worked in isolated decision-making, and have therefore, at times, been at odds with each other, and communities.

4. Since the report was presented, environmental hotspot funding was proposed in the Annual Plan, and an application made to the MfE administered Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF). The FIF application was not successful, however strong commitment exists between parties to the application to undertake some of those works outlined in the application.

5. The HBRC Hotspot funding is in place for the current financial year to complete works that will benefit freshwater quality.

6. An integral component of the Ahuriri Estuary Hotspot Project Plan is the development of an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP). This provides the documentation both of the overall agreed objectives for the estuary, as well as clarifies the busy landscape that exists within this space.

7. The ICMP will:

7.1. Ensure a well-understood, collective vision and implementation measures to improve the quality of freshwater entering the Ahuriri Estuary

7.2. Promote better, collaborative decision-making on land-use, development and infrastructure relating to the estuary

7.3. Recognise that there are a number of statutory and mandated bodies (HBRC, NCC, DoC, Mana Ahuriri) that drive the activities occurring in relation to Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu.

8. In addition to the integrated catchment management plan, the Ahuriri Hotspot Project consists of:

8.1. Staged removal of the invasive tube worm Ficopomatus enigmaticus

8.2. Development of a Land Action Plan which will provide guidance on those works that will achieve the largest benefits for sediment and nutrient mitigation within the catchment

8.3. Catchment works on both private and public land to carry out those actions identified in the Land Action Plan

8.4. Hydrology studies of the Ahuriri Catchment.

Napier City Council’s Draft Ahuriri Estuary & Coastal Edge Masterplan

9. The draft Ahuriri Estuary and Coastal Edge Masterplan is a long-term, big picture vision for a thriving, healthy and resilient Ahuriri estuary and coastal edge. The plan highlights opportunities for the city’s interface with the estuary and coastal edge – improving water quality and biodiversity, encouraging appropriate uses, and creating a resilient estuary environment.

10. Land adjoining the water’s edge is often seen as our most valuable asset – acting as a magnet for people and consequently it is often a challenge to provide for all uses, while managing conflict and protecting the environment. With the help of Napier’s City Vision principles, the Plan identifies initiatives that will leverage Napier’s natural assets to create or improve opportunities for recreation, business, cultural understanding, and environmental restoration.

11. The draft Masterplan covers the area from the Napier Port to Hawke’s Bay Airport, and from the Napier Hill to the Poraiti foothills to the west. The plan was developed by Napier City Council in partnership with Mana Ahuriri, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and the Department of Conservation.

12. Stakeholder, mana whenua and public engagement on the draft plan seeks to ensure the principles of the plan are appropriate, and that the initiatives highlighted are supported. Napier City Council is also looking to understand what the priorities are for the public, and whether there are other ideas that need to be considered. Engagement will take place over the months of September and October, with the timeframe for informal comments closing on 8 November 2017.

Decision Making Process

13. 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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “HBRC Ahuriri Integrated Catchment Management Plan & NCC Ahuriri Master Plan” staff reports.

Authored by:

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Senior Scientist - Coastal Quality

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Stormwater Management Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on stormwater management across the region, including related compliance, policy planning and resource consents activities.

The TANK process

2. Improvements to urban stormwater management are a key focus of the TANK plan change process. HBRC staff are progressing this through several linked workstreams (outlined below).

TANK stormwater working group

3. Firstly, a Stormwater Working Group (SWG) has been established to assist the wider TANK group in its decision-making about improvements to the treatment and management of stormwater discharges through amendments to the current policies and rules.

4. Under its Terms of Reference the SWG is focusing on the management of stormwater runoff and control in relation to its impact directly on freshwater ecosystems and groundwater quality, including where groundwater aquifers are the primary receiving environments and where stormwater networks discharge to surface waterways. This includes urban stormwater impacts on the values of the Waitangi and Ahuriri Estuaries.

5. The SWG comprises representatives from tangata whenua, Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, Forest & Bird, HBRC, Napier City Council and Hastings District Council. Over the course of the last 12 months the group has met several times to better understand the issues relating to stormwater management, as well proposing potential solutions for improvement.

Ongoing collaboration with the TLAs

6. In parallel to the work of the SWG there has been a series of targeted meetings/workshops facilitated by HBRC staff with TLA staff. These workshops have been aimed at a technical/practitioner level, and build on the work of the SWG by building a shared understanding of what is practical and achievable in developing new rules and policies.

7. From these sessions have emerged the following priority areas:

7.1. New development and infrastructure: A focus on ‘retention and detention’ of stormwater, and best practice approach to design and treatment of stormwater.

7.2. Source control: Reducing sources of contamination at point of discharge through appropriate site design and good site management practices.

7.3. Management of legacy issues through integrated Catchment Management Planning: The use of Resource Consents to prioritise retrofitting, stream planting, and installation of treatment devices in the network.

7.4. Consistency of approach: Integration of city, district and regional council rules and processes through shared services and standards, consistent resources consent requirements and a collaborative catchment management process.

8. Work will continue on the development of draft rules and policies, and proposals will be taken back to the wider TANK group for further discussion.

Other relevant projects

9. HBRC Policy staff are also engaged with and are contributing to other parallel projects that also have impacts on stormwater management. These include the Ahuriri Integrated Catchment Management Plan (led by led by HBRC Science, with input from Napier City Council, Department of Conservation and Mana Ahuriri) and the Draft Ahuriri Estuary Master Plan (Napier City Council). These projects are discussed in greater detail in the Agenda Item “HBRC Ahuriri Integrated Catchment Management Plan & NCC Ahuriri Master Plan”.

10. Involvement in these projects is vital to ensuring that improvements to stormwater management are developed in a coordinated way.

TLA Consents and Compliance

11. Since the last Environment and Services Committee meeting there has been ongoing dialogue with Hastings District Council and the formation of a Stormwater Advisory Group comprising of HDC and HBRC staff along with the HDC consultants, MWH. Together the group is working towards the renewal of the HDC stormwater consent and investigating ways to achieve the best environmental outcomes. This is a positive development.

12. Since the last Environment and Services Committee meeting, further compliance monitoring has been carried out on stormwater consents held by Napier City Council. As the attached spreadsheet shows, there are 5 stormwater consents that are deemed to be non-compliant. In the main, the noncompliance relates to a failure by NCC to supply a range of sampling results and maintenance records in consented timeframes. This has been an historic issue with NCC in the late or non-submission of this type of data. Attempts at third tier management level to engender change has been unsuccessful. These matters have been elevated to HBRC Executive level for discussion with NCC Executive.

13. The Central Hawke’s Bay District Council stormwater consent has been discussed recently with CHBDC staff. It is about to be issued. This consent recognizes the existing network that is in place and requires the development of catchment management plans that are intended to lead to improved stormwater management practices and to better stormwater quality.

Decision Making Process

14. 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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Stormwater Management Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Keith Peacock

Team Leader Compliance

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Wayne Wright

Manager Resource Use

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager
External Relations

Attachment/s

⇩1

Updated status TLA Stormwater Consents

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Whakatu Weed and Sediment Control Trial

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Environment and Services Committee with a summary on the Kohupātiki-Whakatu Weed and Sediment Control trial, as part of the Old Ngaruroro (Karamū-Clive) River Enhancement project.

Background

2. In early 2016 community leaders from Kohupātiki and Whakatu requested that HBRC investigate options to mitigate adverse effects associated with sediment and aquatic weed in the Old Ngaruroro (Karamū-Clive) River, following concerns over water quality and odour associated with cut weed.

3. The Environment and Services Committee received the “Kohupātiki Marae - Awa Enhancement for Matatini” report at Kohupātiki Marae on Wednesday 11 May 2016. At this meeting the Committee:

3.1. Agreed to staff working in partnership with Kohupātiki Marae, prior to Matatini, to trial excavation of sediment and weed over approximately 200m in the vicinity of the Marae with funding provided by HBRC.

3.2. Agreed to continue investigations to assess options for reducing the impact of seasonal aquatic weed growth and sedimentation throughout the Karamu Stream and Clive River systems.

Discussion

4. Following the 11 May 2016 meeting existing weed cutting programmes were re-timed to provide maximum benefit and minimise odour at the time of Te Matatini festival. A further programme of work was initiated to trial sediment and weed removal from a section of the Old Ngaruroro (Karamū-Clive) River adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae.

5. The latter project specifically aimed to trial options to manage fine sediment accumulation and removal. Through the course of this work it was anticipated community knowledge and understanding would be improved in the following areas:

5.1. The source and movement of fine sediment accumulation, in relation to the wider Karamū Catchment, the Ngaruroro and the Tūtaekuri, with a focus on Pākōwhai (Pakiaka/Hawea Park) to Waitangi Estuary.

5.2. Methods, effectiveness, cost and feasibility of weed and sediment control techniques, using both existing techniques and developing technology.

5.3. Expected rates of resettlement of sediment and the association with aquatic weed growth.

6. The sediment removal trial was planned so that it would leave the awa in an improved state at the time of Te Matatini.

7. Specifically the project involved:

7.1. Sediment mapping (before and after sediment removal).

7.2. Sediment quality analysis.

7.3. Monitoring of invertebrates and fish to assess any change to ecosystem.

7.4. Sediment removal

7.5. Associated enhancement projects relating to the increased attention and awareness placed on the Awa in support of ‘Te Matatini’ cultural festival (February 2017), such as ‘Te Papa O Tanenuiarangi’ reserve, and the Kohupatiki platform.

8. The sediment removal work was initially to be completed by South Island company South Water Dredging Ltd. Due to the Kaikoura earthquake, transportation issues with the necessary plant from the South Island to Hawke’s Bay as well as health and safety concerns over the operation itself, at short notice South Water Dredging Ltd elected not to complete the trial. Noting the secondary objective to have the waterway clear for Te Matatini an alternative methodology was devised to complete the sediment removal trial.

9. This involved contracting local businesses Davies Water Solutions, Burgiss Contracting and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Works Group to work with Kohupātiki representatives and HBRC staff. The method included using a long reach excavator to remove the top layers of sediment followed by an improvised “suction dredge” to remove the remaining sediment. The sediment was then trucked or pumped to an excavated detention area where the saturated dredged material was left to decant.

10. Kaitiaki from Operation Pātiki and Kohupātiki Marae formed an important part of the project team and were “on site” to direct and support physical works. The project involved partnerships with additional parties including members of the local community, Kohupātiki Marae, HBRC Works Group, TANK Group, Enviroschools, Clive School, Eastern Institute of Technology (EIT), Department of Conservation, Fish and Game NZ, and Hastings District Council.

11. Project expenditure is $35,000 of a budget of $44,000, noting an alternative methodology was required to be developed in order to progress the sediment removal.

12. Outcomes of the trial:

12.1. Complete removal of sediment embedded in gravel substrate at the trial site was not achieved, aquatic weed had re-established within 6 months. The project did not identify specific ongoing sources of sediment or contamination.

12.2. At the time of Te Matatini the Awa was clear of weed with sediment removed adjacent to Kohupātiki Marae.

12.3. Total organic carbon and nutrient concentrations in the sediments are high and may impact on sediment in fauna. Heavy metal concentrations of contaminants in the sediment were generally low except for Zinc which exceed guidelines. Concentrations at both sample sites were considered low enough for safe disposal of the sediment on land, and a high organic and nutrient content could be seen as beneficial.

12.4. The macroinvertebrate communities of the Clive pre- and post- sediment removal were consistent with those associated with soft sediment and aquatic plant dominated rivers. Low energy river flows are implicated in both of these habitat features.

12.5. A range of techniques are available to manage weed and sediment however all need further refinement and improvement in technology to improve effectiveness, cost and feasibility.

13. Information gained from this trial is being utilised in a wider sediment analysis for the Clive River being undertaken for the TANK process and will also assist with consideration for the next Clive River dredging consent process.

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Whakatu Sediment Trial” staff report.

Authored by:

Steve Cave

Team Leader Open Spaces

Antony Rewcastle

Senior Open Space Development Officer

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Management of Public Use of River Berm

Reason for Report

1. In December 2016, a paper “Review of use of Heretaunga Plains Scheme River Berm Land” was presented to the Environment and Services Committee advising of an investigation into Management of Public Use of River Berms within the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme (Rivers).

2. The purpose of this paper is to update council on progress with the Public Use of River Berm investigations.

Background

3. The investigation seeks to understand and / or respond to:

3.1. Perceived declining regional community tolerance over some aspects of river berm management, such as berm grazing.

3.2. Increasing community level of service expectations as berm land has become both more accessible through higher public use such as cycle trails and more visible due to expressway developments.

3.3. Pressures on Scheme land area to accommodate new activities and infrastructure such as horse trails, jet-ski ramps, carparks and sports grounds whilst not compromising flood protection services and the continued opportunity for existing public use and activity.

3.4. Inappropriate public use and activity such as rubbish dumping, vehicle hooning, freedom camping and illegal activity.

3.5. The need to consider the above in the context of multiple use opportunities such as flood control and drainage objectives, iwi aspirations, biodiversity and ecological enhancements.

3.6. The need for a consistent and coordinated council approach to public use management within the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme. A similar approach is being applied to high use sections of the Upper Tukituki rivers where public use conflict is occurring, as we experience increased user demand.

4. The investigation focuses on the major rivers crossing the Heretaunga Plains (Tutaekuri, Ngaruroro and Lower Tukituki), and involves the Scheme owned or administered land and its assets extending from landward toe of stopbank to landward toe of stopbank.

5. This work forms a sub-part of higher level works contributing toward the review of the levels of service provided by the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme (Rivers), currently being progressed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council staff.

6. In December 2016 staff put forward the following program of work to complete the investigation:

6.1. Complete an inventory of all 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

6.2. Investigate best practice options throughout NZ, and work with public and Māori partners to understand their respective aspirations for use and management of our rivers

6.3. Prepare an options report for presentation to Council for consideration and wider public feedback as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.

Update

7. A full and detailed inventory of the project area is nearing completion. This work has involved multiple field visits to over 90% of publicly accessible areas of the river corridors, between December 2016 and July 2017. In addition, an aerial survey was completed via fixed-wing aircraft, in July 2017.

8. Completing the inventory has enabled staff to map and collect data on usage such as land area, grazing area, number and type of activities / user groups to further understand public usage and for statistical analysis. The inventory has also formally re-confirmed key public use issues including:

8.1. Cattle in waterways (as opposed to berm grazing)

8.2. Rubbish dumping and litter

8.3. Motor vehicle access

8.4. Undesirable Access

8.5. Anti-social behavior (graffiti, vandalism, alcohol)

8.6. Public use / activity conflict (competing usage)

8.7. Competing values (flood control, cultural, ecological, recreational, infrastructure)

8.8. Maintenance

8.9. Amenity.

9. Staff are now developing a consultation document and draft report using a reach of the Ngaruroro River from Fernhill to Awatoto as a pilot study to identify and undertake analysis on potential solutions for the above issues. Cattle grazing as a berm maintenance tool for the right bank of this reach ceased in July 2017 when the grazing lease was relinquished by the grazier.

10. It is intended that solutions and outcomes from the pilot study will be able to be applied to the full extent of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme (Rivers) in time, as relevant to various river sections.

11. Alternative strategies to cattle grazing currently being considered for maintenance of berm land include (but are not limited to):

11.1. Commercial cropping, including cut and carry

11.2. Mowing

11.3. The use of alternative ‘low-mow’ grass species

11.4. Do nothing (considering potential risks of non-management, for example, letting the grass grow)

11.5. Forestry

11.6. Conversion to park land

11.7. Concession use.

12. Options being considered for managing public use expectation and impacts of recreational use include (but are not limited to):

12.1. Defining usage areas (including potentially reducing river access points) and confirming level of service requirement for each usage area including appropriate staff and financial resource

12.2. Restricting vehicle access and considering risks of parking within the floodplain

12.3. Resource requirements and mechanisms for policing and security, including legislative requirements

12.4. Resource requirements for maintaining recreational infrastructure.

13. Through the course of this investigation staff are mindful of the following:

13.1. The primary purpose of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme

13.2. Legislation, Council policy, plans and other guidance documentation relevant to this project

13.3. Iwi aspirations

13.4. Ecological and biodiversity outcomes

13.5. Scheme and ratepayer affordability.

14. The consultation document and draft report on the investigation into Management of Public Use of River Berm is expected to be completed by November 2017.

Decision Making Process

15. 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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Management of Public Use of River Berm” staff update report.

Authored by:

Steve Cave

Team Leader Open Spaces

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 13 September 2017

Subject: Tūtira Regional Park Pine Forest UpdatE

Reason for Report

1. To update the Environment and Services Committee on Tūtira Regional Park pine forest harvest planning and replanting option development for the pine forested area post-harvest.

Background

2. A full briefing paper was presented to the Environment and Services Committee on 15 March 2017 discussing the Tūtira Regional Park Pine forest harvest. At this and the subsequent Council meeting Council resolved:

2.1. Authorises the Chief Executive to enter into an agreement for access and commitment for a permanent access easement with the owner of the land over which the preferred forest access route (Option 2) traverses.

2.2. Authorises the Chief Executive to commit to construction of phase 1 of Option 2 of the access route from SH2 to approximately 360m south of the Papakiri Stream and associated bridge construction, starting in the current financial year and once an easement is formally in place.

2.3. Agrees to proposals for harvesting of the pine trees to occur over a 3 year period commencing in 2018 including construction of phase 2 infrastructure (sediment control and skid sites).

2.4. Notes that a replanting plan will be brought to the Environment and Services Committee later in July or September 2017 for approval.

Pine Forest Harvest

3. Access easement negotiations have progressed to a point where conditions have been agreed to and the agreement is now ready for formal landowner sign off, which is planned to occur in September 2017. Phase 1 construction of the access road is planned to occur in late 2017, subject to final agreement signing and weather limitations. This initial phase will involve entranceway construction and a bridge or culvert to provide transporter and log truck access across Papakiri Stream.

4. The first age classes planned for forest harvest are scheduled for late 2018 once initial harvest infrastructure (roading, sediment traps, skid sites) have been constructed. Roading progress will not likely permit any harvest start until summer 2018/19.

5. The new National Environmental Standard for Production Forestry (NES-PF) was passed into law in August 2017. This will be enforced from 1 May 2018. The Tūtira harvest project will accordingly be conducted under this legislation, which means that a number of permitted activity conditions will need to be met and consents will need to be gained for some earthworks activities and stream crossings.

6. Forest environmental and NES-PF workshop. Fourteen Hawke’s Bay Forestry Group members met with six members of the Land Management team on Tūtira Regional Park in August, to focus on the coming harvest and the mitigations for the environmental considerations at the site, in light of the NES-PF.

7. All of the senior forest engineering staff from the three major forestry companies in Hawke’s Bay were in attendance. The workshop output was a series of options to enable HBRC to excel in best practice in forest harvest with a focus on minimising sediment yield and loss into Lake Tūtira. Outputs from this workshop will be used to inform the harvest planning process and to provide harvest planning notes to the successful bidder for harvest of the forest.

8. Tenders for purchase of the initial tranche of volume for harvest will be sought once Phase 1 road access and bridge construction are complete. The tender detail, staff assessment and recommendations will be presented to Council for acceptance and approval. Log prices are currently historically strong but any delay carries some chance of price adjustment. Offsetting this risk is each additional year of growth (close to a commonly recommended 27 year harvest age) will result in approximately 25 additional tonnes per hectare of timber volume being accrued.

Replanting Plan Development

9. All existing pine (Pinus radiata) forest in Tūtira Regional Park has been planted for erosion control purposes. The forest forms part of a growing suite of catchment initiatives aimed at minimising the amount of sediment entering Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro, particularly during high intensity rainfall events.

10. The forest was planted with the knowledge that it would yield a financial return upon harvest. There are varying views as to whether it was intended that harvest revenue be reinvested in the immediate area or the wider Hawke’s Bay region. It is noted that some community believe any future revenue generating crop established on the park should be reinvested in the park or within the district for environmental / community good purposes.

11. The Tūtira Regional Park pine forested area sits within a mosaic of vegetated settings, planted and / or supported for a range of purposes. These settings include other pine forests, arboretums, such as that on the Guthrie Smith Trust property, manuka forest, eucalypts, redwood stands, regenerating native and remnant native areas.

12. While the reasoning for the original establishment of pine forest on Tūtira Regional park is understood and still absolutely relevant, there is a need to consider a range of post-harvest replanting options. These considerations are needed because:

12.1. Tūtira Regional Park encompasses several significant community and environmental values that any replanting option(s) need to contribute toward positively through protection, maintenance and / or enhancement of those values.

12.2. Community feedback via forums such as the Tūtira Maungaharuru Forum varies as to what the land use should be post-harvest with some supporting replanting in pine forest, others replanting in alternative rotational tree species and some suggesting the area should be permanently retired. This reinforces the need for transparency and due diligence in determining the post-harvest planting option(s).

12.3. Cultural aspirations for the whenua needs to be considered and supported where possible. Note, the pine forested area does not sit on any identified (known to HBRC staff) cultural sites of significance.

12.4. Affordability and maintenance provision of any subsequent land use should future returns be non-financial or less tangible than those expected from the existing pine forest.

12.5. Council is making both significant investment in the necessary harvest infrastructure to extract the existing tree crop as well as substantial investment in improving the water quality of Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro through a variety of initiatives.

12.6. Lake Tūtira and the forested area (due to proximity to the lake and State Highway) have a high regional profile.

Multiple Criteria Analysis

13. Given the range of considerations and profile of Lake Tūtira, staff are utilising a multiple criteria analysis (MCA) methodology to facilitate decision making. Iwi representatives, members of the local community, interested persons including regional councillor Paul Bailey and relevant HBRC staff are participating in a working group to score nine pre-determined replanting options on their contribution toward enhancing six park values.

14. The six park values are documented in historical Tūtira Country Park management plans as well as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Park Network Plan. These include:

14.1. Soil conservation

14.2. Cultural

14.3. Economic

14.4. Biodiversity

14.5. Landscape / Amenity

14.6. Education / Recreation.

15. The nine replanting options being considered have been identified by HBRC staff. These include:

15.1. Commercial pine forest (status quo)

15.2. Commercial redwood forest

15.3. Dryland forest (eucalypts)

15.4. Native forest (production)

15.5. Manuka

15.6. Managed native regeneration

15.7. Unmanaged native regeneration

15.8. Arboretum

15.9. Pasture.

16. Members of the working group have participated in a workshop to discuss the process to arrive at a replanting option. Most members have also participated in a field trip to the park to view the pine forest and surrounding land. This provided opportunity for good discussion on the harvest process, land management issues and challenges. A second workshop is to be held on the 6 September to establish value weightings and proceed with scoring each identified replanting option against the weighted value.

17. To aid the MCA process a land use capability assessment was completed in August 2017 over the park by Garth Eyles. This work has mapped the park into land use capability units based on the lands physical characteristics. Each unit is described both in terms of its limitations (for example, soils, slope, erosion potential, aspect) as well as its most appropriate use (for example, forest, pasture, crop, permanent retirement). The pine forested area will be divided into 3 or 4 distinct areas based on LUC groupings. It is intended that these areas will each have the MCA applied, or at a minimum be considered individually, to arrive at a “composite” replanting option (likely a combination of more than one replanting option).

18. HBRC staff representatives have ultimate responsibility for decision making on value weightings and option scoring considering Working Group discussion. The intention is that the Working Group reaches collective agreement on the MCA value weightings and scoring however if collective agreement is not achieved the responsibility for decision making will default to HBRC staff representatives with due consideration given to group discussions.

19. Once a “composite” option is arrived at staff will evaluate the composite option against replanting in Pinus radiata (status quo) taking into account factors such as return on investment, cost to establish, plant pest control, short term rotation versus long term rotation versus permanent rotation, erosion risk, community value.

20. Outcomes of this evaluation will be considered by HBRC Executive with recommendations presented to the Environment and Services Committee for decision making in November 2017. Timing of the first harvest is summer of 2018/2019. The process for arriving at a replanting option for Tūtira Regional Park fits within the proposed harvesting timeframe. On current forecasts replanting of the first harvested area will occur in the winter of 2019.

Decision Making Process

21. 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.

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Tūtira Regional Park Pine Forest – Harvest and Replanting Plan” staff update report.

Authored by:

Steve Cave

Team Leader Open Spaces

Approved by:

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager
Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.