Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Sustainable Homes Policy and Funding Criteria

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Environment and Services Committee with the Sustainable Homes Policy and Voluntary Targeted Rate (VTR) Funding Criteria for consideration and recommendation to Council.

Background

2. The Sustainable Homes programme was approved as part of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan to encourage the use of solar energy, domestic water storage and upgraded septic tanks for homes in Hawke’s Bay to become more sustainable and resilient.

3. Heat Smart has the aim to reduce particles of polluting smoke in the affected airsheds by replacing open fires or wood burners with more efficient forms of heating and the installation of insulation. This activity is classified as a private benefit and is funded by way of a targeted rate based on land value for those in the Napier and Hastings airsheds, and by the charging of fees for those who take up the offer of Council assistance.

4. Transitioning the Heatsmart programme to become the Sustainable Homes programme will include funding to support ratepayers, and promoting energy and water use efficiency.

5. The Sustainable Homes Policy is a formal statement of principles that outlines how Council staff will manage the programme.

Strategic Fit

6. Council has agreed to borrow up to $13 million over the next 10 years to provide financial assistance packages to initially allow 1300 homes in Hawke’s Bay to become more sustainable, reduce energy consumption, and become more resilient in a civil emergency.

7. The programme will contribute to Council’s achievement of its strategic goals through:

7.1. Improved water quality resulting from the reduction of leachate from septic tanks that need replacement. To be evidenced by SOE water quality reporting and the number of tanks replaced.

7.2. Continued improvement of air quality to meet WHO standards as stated in the Strategic plan

7.3. Increased number of warmer, drier homes leading to Improved health and reduced health burden

7.4. Improved civil defence resilience

7.5. Increased energy efficiency and reduced demand

7.6. Reduced dependence on networked supply (energy and water)

7.7. Solar will assist in moving HBRC from the national current renewable energy level of 85% to the planned 100% in line with the HBRC strategic goal of carbon neutrality by 2040.

7.8. Reporting progress on outcomes will be to the Environment and Services committee annually.

Financial and Resource Implications

8. The Sustainable Homes programme will provide assistance to homeowners to install solar systems, to provide water storage to improve resilience in an emergency, and to replace older septic tanks. These activities are classified as a private benefit and are funded by the charging of fees for those who take up the offer of Council assistance.

9. The scheme will be fully cost recovered (packages will be repaid through a voluntary targeted rate on the property) so there is no impact on the general ratepayer.

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 ratepayers in the region that wish to avail themselves of Sustainable Homes funding assistance.

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

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Sustainable Homes Policy and Funding Criteria” 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. Accepts the Sustainable Homes Policy and Voluntary Targeted Rate (VTR) Funding Criteria.

Authored by:

Mark Heaney

Manager Client Services

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Attachment/s

⇩1

Sustainable Homes Policy and Voluntary Targeted Rate Funding Criteria

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Delegations Register – Resource Consent Processes – September 2018

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Committee with the updated Delegations Register for Council approval.

Need for review

2. The Delegations register records all of the delegations necessary to enable the decisions required through the resource consent application process, and needs to be kept current.

3. The Consents processes were recently audited as a requirement for maintaining the Consents Section’s ISO 9001-2015 accreditation, noting that the delegations are not consistent with the new organisational structure. For example the Consents section now reports to the Group Manager Regulation rather than the Group Manager External Relations.

4. In light of the ISO Audit and the organisational restructure, staff reviewed the Delegations Register and made the changes necessary to correct the names of positions and to remove staff positions where they no longer have a role in consenting processes. There have been no RMA changes in the period since the last update and no other changes have been made.

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

5.5. 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 “Delegations Register – Resource Consent Processes – September 2018” staff report.

2. The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2.2. Approves, pursuant to RMA s34A(1) the delegations set out in the updated Delegation Register – Resource Consent Processes (September 2018) as provided.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

⇩1

Consents Delegations Update 2018

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Response to Ongaonga/Tikokino Bore Issues

Reason for Report

1. To provide background and context for the changes in groundwater level occurring in the vicinity of Ongaonga and Tikokino, and the effect this has on existing and future groundwater takes.

Background

2. On 18 June 2018, 70 residents of Ongaonga and 45 residents of Tikokino sent a letter and petition to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council to articulate their concerns about use of the shallow groundwater aquifer in the Ruataniwha basin from which they draw their water. The petitioners stated existing and proposed consents for groundwater takes interfere with their property rights, specifically their right of access to safe and reliable drinking water from existing shallow bores.

3. On 25 July 2018, Bill Stevenson presented a case to Council urging the protection of existing shallow groundwater for residents of Ongaonga and Tikokino. During this meeting Mr. Stevenson presented a historical account of groundwater availability issues beginning in 2004, and also raised concerns about the effects of granting additional water under Tranche 2 from Plan Change 6.

4. This paper provides a summary of information gathered from Council’s science and monitoring programs, the current policy for groundwater in the Ruataniwha Basin, how consents are managed and options that are available to provide some assistance to property owners through Council’s Sustainable Homes package.

Current groundwater level conditions

5. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council monitors groundwater levels at over 50 bores in the Ruataniwha Basin. The oldest monitoring bores have been monitored since 1992 (26 years). Each month the groundwater team reports on the state of the groundwater by comparing recent monthly measurements against historical data. For the month of July 2018 groundwater levels across the Ruataniwha Basin were generally normal to above normal compared to historical measurements (Figure 1).

6. The Regional Council has been monitoring groundwater levels in Ongaonga since 2004. There is no monitor bore in Tikokino. The closest monitor bore is 1485 along Butler Road.

7. At Ongaonga, groundwater levels in July measured normal compared with historical records. Our monitoring data indicates groundwater levels in Ongaonga vary about 3 m to 5 m annually. Over the last 6 years, measured groundwater levels during summer and winter, have been lower than normal. This pattern is similar across the Ruataniwha and Heretaunga plains. These effects are partly driven by climatic conditions and partly by groundwater use.

8. The lowest groundwater level at Ongaonga occurred in January 2017 and measured 9 m below land surface. This particular observation is historically unusual and may reflect interference from pumping within the bore (this is a private bore also used for domestic purposes). Typically, the lowest groundwater levels here are about 7 m below land surface.

Figure 1: Groundwater level conditions taken from July’s monthly groundwater level SoE report.

9. The greatest rates of decline are in summer, resulting in more pronounced seasonal variation over time. This trend indicates residents of Ongaonga may experience lower groundwater level conditions, for longer periods in the future; or at least until a new equilibrium is reached.

Figure 2: Groundwater level hydrograph from bore 15048 at Ongaonga township, from 2004 to present day. The red line is the average measured depth, light blue the normal range over time and dark blue the record high and low over the period of record.

10. Bore 1485 is located approximately 2.2 km northeast of Tikokino. Groundwater levels at this bore have been measured periodically since 1992, and on a monthly basis since 2011 (Figure 3). Water levels in this bore appear to be declining over time. Historic winter groundwater levels were previously approximately 7.5 m and now are approximately 9 m below land surface.

Figure 3: Groundwater level hydrograph from bore 1485 located near Tikokino township from 2011 to present day. Note the downwards trend in the measured levels (red line).

Long-term groundwater level conditions

11. The long-term effects of groundwater pumping are difficult to predict and require numerical modelling to help understand the many complexities and interactions that occur spatially and temporarily within an aquifer system, and with surface water. Groundwater monitoring helps to build these models and is important in the conceptualisation and parameterisation stages.

12. In 2015, the Regional Council undertook an assessment of long-term groundwater level trends and change from 1994-2014. Statistically significant monotonic (ie, a single trend) declines within the Ruataniwha Basin for both winter and summer water levels were identified.

13. Groundwater level declines occur when the rate of discharge exceeds recharge. To account for the change in storage, groundwater systems adjust by either increasing the natural rate of recharge or discharge (springs). As the system adjusts and a new equilibrium is reached, groundwater level declines abate. There are many examples of this phenomena around the world (figure 4 USA examples).

Figure 4: Example of water level declines in the USA. A) Texas groundwater levels showing decline, stablisation and then recovery. B) Memphis groundwater levels declined prior to reaching a new equilbrium. Pumping rates stablised in 1975 and long term declines abated.

14. In 2010, to assist with setting allocation limits and policy for Plan Change 6 (PC6), the Regional Council developed a transient groundwater model for the Ruataniwha Plains. The long-term effects of pumping were investigated by modelling a 7 year period from 2010 to 2017. The modelling indicated that when pumping was kept constant (at 25 million m³/yr – 2010 estimated use), groundwater levels stabilised (declines abated). This evidence was used to support the allocations proposed for PC6 and to ensure the resource was sustainably managed and not ‘mined’.

15. Further evidence that the system is not being ‘mined’ comes from estimates of recharge and pumping. Baalousha (2009) estimates recharge from rivers and rainfall contributes approximately 300 million m³/year to the basin. At full allocation under PC6 (approx. 30 million m³/yr) pumping removes 10% of total recharge, a small proportion of the total recharge.

Groundwater allocation under Plan Change 6

16. In 2013, during PC6 preparation, HBRC proposed a groundwater allocation limit of 28.5 million m³/year to protect surface flows and instream habitat. This allocation also represented the estimated current groundwater allocated/used in 2010.

17. In 2014, the Board of Inquiry (the panel appointed by the Minister for the Environment to jointly hear the Tukituki Catchment Plan Change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage proposal) adopted the limits proposed by the Regional Council. In addition the Board, in response to evidence presented during the hearing, determined that it was appropriate to provide a framework for additional groundwater use and accordingly developed a Tranche 2 allocation within Groundwater Allocation Zones 2 and 3 (Figure 1). This new block of allocation allows users access to a further 15 million m³/year, but only if a supplementary flow regime is in place to mitigate effects on surface water.

18. Granting of groundwater from Tranche 2 could contribute to groundwater level declines in the Ongaonga and Tikokino areas. In evidence presented before the Board of Inquiry Baalousha states:

“Regardless of uncertainty or limitations of any model, as accepted in our conferencing statement one thing is certain: further abstraction of groundwater and surface water will result in further decline in current groundwater level, spring and river flows.”

19. The degree of additional water level changes will depend on how confined the aquifer(s) that the Ongaonga and Tikokino communities are accessing water from is, and how connected it is to other deeper aquifers.

20. Eight resource consent applications have been made to take Tranche 2 water for the irrigation of more land in this area. Further modelling would be required to better understand the potential magnitude of these takes on local groundwater level conditions. This has been requested of the Tranche 2 applicants and this work is underway.

Domestic groundwater use and bore configurations

21. Residents of Ongaonga and Tikokino rely on shallow groundwater for drinking water and other domestic purposes. During summer months, groundwater levels can decline below surface pump intakes, and limit access to groundwater.

22. This issue occurs mainly with bores that have surface pumps. Surface pumps abstract water by creating a vacuum and rely on atmospheric pressure to ‘push’ water up the suction hose. Under perfect conditions, surface water pumps could draw water about 10.3 m vertically. In reality, due to friction losses and imperfect vacuums, surface pumps typically are able to draw water from around 5 m to 7 m below the pump (which is usually located at the land’s surface).

23. Most bores in the Ongaonga and Tikokino areas are about 30 m deep. During summer months, groundwater levels typically decline to approximately 5 m to 8 m below land surface. This indicates that during an average summer there is a further 22 m of water depth in bores that is not accessible by surface pumps.

24. An alternative pumping approach would be to use submersible pumps. Submersible pumps are able to push water much higher than surface pumps can draw. Where submersibles can be installed, access to deeper water is generally improved. Examples of such solutions were presented by Bill Stevenson at the July meeting.

25. Given the decline in groundwater levels in the area – particularly in summer – it is likely residents of Tikokino and Ongaonga using surface pumps will experience increased difficulties in pumping water from their bores. If Tranche 2 water is used, groundwater levels will probably decline further before stabilising. Whether this will occur in the shallower aquifer that these communities are taking their water from needs to be determined.

Consent considerations

26. Consents – what consideration is given to impacts on existing users from new applications?

27. In relation to consenting the taking of groundwater, allocation limits are set in the Tukituki Plan Change 6. This provides for the quantities discussed above to be allocated. Given the plan provides for these quantities we would anticipate that it is appropriate for this to occur across the groundwater zones. That is, that the cumulative effect of this is tolerable. But note that the plan requires that the effect of Tranche 2 takes from the Ruataniwha Basin (Groundwater Allocation Zones 2 and 3)( see Figure 1) on surface water are to be offset through augmentation to maintain the relevant minimum flows. While able to allocate this amount of water there would need to be an assessment of the effect of each proposed take on other groundwater takes and on surface water in the vicinity of the take. There is provision in the RPS (Objective 24 and Policy 28) to allow access to water but to require new takes to avoid remedy or mitigate any significant interference on existing lawfully established efficient groundwater takes.

28. An “Efficient ground water take” is defined in the RRMP as follows:

“Efficient groundwater take. Abstraction by a bore which penetrates the aquifer from which water is being drawn at a depth sufficient to enable water to be drawn all year (i.e. the bore depth is below the range of seasonal fluctuations in groundwater level), with the bore being adequately maintained, of sufficient diameter and is screened to minimise drawdown, with a pump capable of drawing water from the base of the bore to the land surface.

29. Consents staff interpret this approach to mean that shallow bores are not to be protected if they are not efficient. The use of surface pumps to access water from the aquifer would not be considered an efficient groundwater take if it would be possible to pump at a greater depth from the base of the bore. If the bore is shallow from the outset it is questionable that this would be an efficient bore if it is not set below seasonal fluctuations. However as observed above, the seasonal fluctuations have increased over recent years.

30. Individuals are entitled to take water to supply their domestic and stock water needs. However it is not incumbent on the Regional Council to ensure that water is available regardless of natural variations or human influences. Shallow water is available in these areas but access depends on seasonal variations, the effects of other takes and the depths of bores.

31. In 2014 the Consents team processed an application to change the take for an irrigation use from bore 1394 (46m deep) to bore 16408 (114m deep). The assessment for this application concluded that the move to a deep bore was likely to reduce interference effects on the township wells

32. As part of the pump test on the new deeper well they monitored well 1394 and a well at 13 Bridge Street, Ongaonga. The AEE stated that:

There is no apparent effect on the shallow water table over the period of the pump test associated with abstraction from Well No. 16408 at a rate of 40 L/s.

33. This is a similar conclusion to the Plantation Rd Dairies aquifer testing on their deep well (undertaken by GNS, 35-day pump test).

34. The understanding from this is that taking from deeper bores in this vicinity was not estimated to have a significant direct adverse effect on the shallower bores due to the observed lack of interference during the pump tests. As is evident, this is contrary to the concerns being voiced by the residents.

35. The Tranche 2 water applications are in process and there are applications for takes in the vicinity of Ongaonga and Tikokino townships. The Tranche 2 applicants are being asked to demonstrate whether there will be adverse effects on other water takes. This work will be reviewed by Council staff and other groundwater experts. If there are effects identified these will need to be considered in the consenting process.

36. While the concerns of the residents are acknowledged the risk of taking deeper water on these shallower bores has been assessed previously and it has not been demonstrated that these will cause significant direct drawdown effects on takes from the shallow aquifer. This will be assessed again for the Tranche 2 applications. If effects are established the appropriateness of granting consent and the options for mitigating these effects will need to be considered. Also there would be a need to determine whether affected bores are efficient. If they are not efficient groundwater takes, then RRMP policy does not protect them. In this case the bore owners would need to take their own actions to make their bore and take efficient. It is noted from the petition that some residents have modified their bores. Alternative options may be to work together to supplement supplies or to work with the District Council to provide a more secure community water supply. This might also have the benefit of ensuring that water is of a suitable potable standard, and is protected from contamination by the onsite wastewater systems used in the townships. Where bores are considered efficient then bore owners’ access to reliable water should be secured. An assessment of which bores are considered efficient may be necessary.

Sustainable Homes option

37. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council as part of the 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan has agreed to borrow up to $13 million over the next 10 years to provide financial assistance packages, to allow 1300 homes in Hawke’s Bay to become more sustainable, reduce energy consumption, and become more resilient in a civil emergency. The sustainable homes programme includes the purchase of domestic water storage. Domestic water storage is for the collection of rainwater, or establishing a reserve from bore or reticulated supply. Capturing local rainfall for non-potable purposes can contribute up to 40% reduction in demand for reticulated supply and some councils are already encouraging this. A valuable by-product of rainfall collection is that it also reduces the pressure on stormwater systems.

38. Additional storage provides increased domestic resilience in emergency event. It is not designed as a potable supply due to public health requirements. The Building Act G12/A5 2 NZ requires a consent if the tank is connected to the potable water and requires back flow prevention to protect the water source and the work must comply with the Building Code as consented by TLA’s. Structural Clause Code: If a chartered Engineer has designed the platform, it will be exempt. A Platform has to have restraints to safeguard in an earthquake. The owners must comply with these rules.

39. The programme is designed to facilitate purchase of water tanks by approving a voluntary targeted rate (VTR) to repay the amount borrowed over a ten year term. VTR on a property to be cleared on property sale. Choice of tank size is selected by owner. Average domestic rain water tanks are 2000 ltrs or under. Larger tanks 30,000 ltrs cost around $2800 plus install and are approximately 3m x 3m in size. The scheme borrowing is limited at a minimum of $1000 and a maximum of $10,000 per property and can include any of the following sustainability products: Domestic water storage; clean heating; insulation; solar hot water and for Solar photovoltaic; double glazing and septic tank replacement the upper limit on borrowing is $20,000.

Decision Making Process

40. 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 “Response to Ongaonga/Tikokino Bore Issues” staff report.

Authored by:

Simon Harper

Senior Scientist

Mark Heaney

Manager Client Services

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist – Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager Science

Mary-Anne Baker

Senior Planner

Janine Barber

Principal Scientist Groundwater Quality

Paul Barrett

Principal Consents Planner

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Attachment/s

⇩1

Figure 1 - Schedule XVII Tukituki Plan Change 6 - Groundwater Allocation Zones

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Forestry Slash Management

Reason for Report

1. The issue of forestry slash has been highlighted over recent months, both here in Hawke’s Bay and in neighboring regions, following significant rainfall events.

2. The purpose of this paper is to inform the Committee of the regulations available through the National Environment Standards – Plantation Forestry for Council to manage for the reduction and avoidance of forestry slash and debris.

Discussion

National Environment Standards – Plantation Forestry

3. The National Environment Standards for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) came into effect on 1 May 2018.These regulations apply to any forest larger than one hectare that has been specifically planted for commercial purposes and harvest. This does not include, for example, trees grown for fruit, nut crops, shelter belts or nurseries.

4. The NES-PF covers eight core plantation forestry activities:

4.1. Afforestation

4.2. Pruning and thinning-to-waste

4.3. Earthworks

4.4. River crossings

4.5. Forest quarrying

4.6. Harvesting

4.7. Mechanical land preparation

4.8. Replanting

5. Of these activities regional councils have functions under pruning and thinning-to-waste and harvesting in respect of slash and debris management.

6. The most noticeable effect of the NES-PF within Hawke’s Bay is the increasing need for forestry companies to obtain resource consents for their activities. The NES-PF permit core forestry activities provided there are no significant adverse environmental effects. Where the risks of harm to the environment are higher, or if a forest operator cannot meet the requirements for a permitted activity, the operator will need to apply for a resource consent. (e.g. harvesting in a red zone.)

7. Traditionally the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has had a permissive approach to forestry activities and as a result of the NES-PF a number of forestry activities will now need resource consents where previously they would not have needed to obtain them. This is different to Gisborne District Council, for example, which has had a much greater level of regulation around forestry activities. Although, as you would have seen, this has not prevented there being a significant issue around forestry slash in Gisborne. GDC’s issue has been its limited monitoring resource.

Pruning and thinning-to-waste

8. Pruning removes branches from the lower sections of a tree, typically up to about 6.5m above ground. Thinning is selective removal of trees within a stand to achieve an optimum stocking rate for the final crop. Thinning operations leave the felled trees on the forest floor and the main effect to manage is the deposition of slash material (slash is defined in the NES-PF as any tree waste left behind after plantation forestry activities).

9. Under regulation 19 (1) pruning and thinning to waste is a permitted activity by a territorial authority with no conditions attached.

10. Under regulation 19 (2) pruning and thinning to waste is a permitted activity by a regional council if regulation 20 (1) and 20 (2) are complied with:

20. Permitted activity conditions: slash

(1) Slash from pruning and thinning to waste must not be deposited into a water body or onto the land that would be covered by water during a 5% AEP event, or into coastal water.

(2) If sub clause (1) is not complied with, slash from pruning and thinning to waste must be removed from a water body, the land that would be covered by water during a 5% AEP event, and coastal water, unless to do so would be unsafe, to avoid-

(a) Blocking or damming of a water body;

(b) Eroding river banks;

(c) Significant adverse effects on aquatic life;

(d) Damaging downstream infrastructure, property, or receiving environments, including the coastal environment.

If regulation 20 is not complied with a controlled activity resource consent is required.

Harvesting

11. Harvesting means felling trees, extracting trees, thinning tree stems and extraction for sale or use (production thinning), processing trees into logs, or loading logs on to trucks for delivery to processing plants.

12. Harvesting has the potential for adverse environmental effects particularly in difficult terrain or near sensitive receiving environments. One potential adverse effect is slash from harvesting reaching water, leading to changes in water chemistry or the damming and diverting of water possibly damaging downstream property and infrastructure (e.g bridges and culverts).

13. Harvesting is a permitted activity in relation to territorial authority functions if notice is provided by the forestry company to the council. This notice (which must also be given to the regional council) must include:

13.1. The place where harvesting will be carried out; and

13.2. The dates on which the harvesting is planned to begin and end

14. The notice must occur:

14.1 At least 20 and no more than 60 working days before the date on which the harvesting is planned to begin; or

14.2 A minimum of 2 days before the date which harvesting required for salvage operations is planned to begin; or

14.3 Annually in the case of ongoing harvesting operations.

15. Regulation 69 (which is in relation to harvesting and applies to regional councils) is as follows:

69. Permitted activity conditions: slash and debris management

(1) Slash from harvesting must be placed onto stable ground.

(2) Slash from harvesting that is on the edge of landing sites must be managed to avoid the collapse of slash piles.

(3) Slash from harvesting must not be deposited into a water body or onto the land that would be covered by water during a 5% AEP event.

(4) If sub clause (3) is not complied with, slash from harvesting must be removed from a water body and the land that would be covered by water during a 5% AEP flood event, unless to do so would be unsafe, to avoid—

(a) blocking or damming of a water body:

(b) eroding river banks:

(c) significant adverse effects on aquatic life:

(d) damaging downstream infrastructure, property, or receiving environments, including the coastal environment.

Slash Traps

16. Slash traps are an ancillary activity and regulated under the NES-PF.

17. The construction, installation, use, maintenance, or removal of a slash trap on land, including land within the riparian zone, is a permitted activity in relation to territorial authority functions. There are no associated conditions

18. The construction, installation, use, maintenance, or removal of a slash trap in the bed of a river or on land is a permitted activity in relation to regional council functions, if regulations 84-91 are complied with.

19. Probably the important regulation in this suite is reg. 86 – Inspection and clearance – which requires that the slash trap must be:

19.1. Inspected within 5 working days of any significant rainfall event likely to mobilise debris;

19.2. Cleared of debris at least 20 working days after a 5% AEP event; and

19.3. Maintained to avoid erosion of the river bed and maintained in a structurally sound and effective condition.

Ongoing Regulatory Management

Consents

20. The consents team is organised to process resource consents arising under the NES. Members of the team have attended workshops on the NES prior to its implementation and have been in discussion with other regions to help establish processes. The team can be increased to ensure there is capacity for processing resource consents for forestry activities. A number of resource consents have been applied for since May for several forestry activities. These include afforestation and harvesting in high erosion areas. There have been some minor non performances relating to service of advice of commencement that have been addressed by way of deemed permitted activity notices. While some aspects of slash management may be able to be conditioned by consenting it is likely that conditions addressing slash would be the same as those set for permitted activities. There will be a reliance that operators comply with the permitted or consented conditions, and a need for monitoring to ensure required practices are followed and that these are effective in severe events.

Compliance Monitoring

21. In the recently adopted 2018-28 Long Term Plan, provision was made for additional support in the compliance monitoring area. One of these roles has been filled by a new staff member with an extensive forestry background. His primary role will be the monitoring of permitted forestry activities (for which we can now recover costs) and a key focus will be the management of slash and other debris so as to minimise or avoid the potential for movement of debris and slash into waterways during rainfall events.

Decision Making Process

22. 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 “Forestry Slash Management” staff report.

Authored by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Group Manager Regulation

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Forestry Investments Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the programme of work that gives effect to the intent of the Kahutia Accord as well as progress on work programmes associated with forestry investments.

Background

2. In the 2018-28 Long Term Plan the Council has provided for increased grant fund for erosion control and riparian planting, with an associated increase in staff to promote and manage this increased level of activity. This accelerated and scaled-up activity has environmental outcomes as the primary focus but creates the opportunity to drive demand for land use change that also generates commercial forestry opportunities for the Council, co-investors and the private sector.

3. The 2018-28 Long Term Plan Consultation Document indicated that the Council is considering increasing its investment in commercial forestry beyond the current holdings, which are worth approximately $10 million and comprise radiata, eucalypt and Manuka plantings. This proposed increase in commercial forestry activity will have significant financial implications for the Council and will therefore likely need to be subject to a special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act. Further public consultation on this increased investment in commercial forestry has been signalled to the community, and work is underway between Council staff and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company to develop the investment case for consultation as detailed further following.

Kahutia Accord

4. The Kahutia Accord was signed by the Council Chairman and the Chairman of Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) on Friday 24 August. The Accord sets out the terms on which NKII and HBRC intend to co-invest, by way of both joint and aligned investment, in a programme of regional re-forestation for restoration of the mana of Tanē and Papatuanuku.

5. Kahutia involves the recloaking of the region’s vulnerable landscapes through the planting of trees and shrubs, and where appropriate native reversion, particularly for:

5.1 the reduction of erosion and silt in the region’s waterways and coastal environments including reducing adverse impacts at harvest of production forests

5.2 increased resilience of landscapes to extreme weather events

5.3 sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere

5.4 increased regional biodiversity.

6. Within the Kahutia Accord NKII and HBRC have a stated aim for 100,000 hectares of land to be subject to reforestation efforts across Hawke’s Bay by 2030. Economic and social outcomes by way of industry creation, skills development and employment are also key objectives. Reconnecting the community with the environment is also an intended co-benefit.

7. HBRC staff are currently working with staff from NKII on applications to the Provincial Growth Fund to support the joint work programme. The approach being pursued sees the Council focusing more heavily on the land science and land use mapping to target afforestation efforts and define ‘the right tree in the right place’, with NKII focusing more heavily on the development of the workforce and nursery supply. Both approaches are complimentary and represent a sensible division. A partnership with the Department of Corrections at the Hawke’s Bay Prison is also under development, with announcements expected shortly.

Integrated Catchment Management

8. The principal strategy being pursued by HBRC to achieve its contribution to the objectives of the Kahutia Accord is to work with catchment communities and individual landowners to identify critical sources of environmental contaminants (most importantly sediment) and develop appropriate interventions to address these. The interventions are expected to be both non-commercial and commercial in nature. Where commercial opportunities exist the Council will aim to avoid crowding out or competing with private investment, and instead focus its interventions on non-commercial, public good interventions and those where a sub-commercial rates of return maybe acceptable to achieve the environmental outcomes sought.

9. HBRC’s work with catchment communities and individual landowners is being spearheaded by the newly-created Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) Group. This Group combines catchment advisor teams, with biosecurity and biodiversity staff, and science staff that will inform targeted effort and outcome monitoring. Since 1 July 2018 a key focus of activity for the Group has been the recruitment of new staff and the establishment of teams based in Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay. This process is nearly complete with teams now up and running and engaging farmers. Progress so far includes:

9.1 The creation of a database and mapping of landowners who have expressed an interest in receiving support from HBRC for farm environment planning, riparian fencing and planting, and erosion control planting. This growing list of landowners will soon be followed up with dedicated visits.

9.2 A social marketing campaign to drive demand from the farming community is being designed with the assistance of a contracted marketing firm, along with the development of promotional and web-based materials, as well as guidance and contract documentation.

9.3 Staff have trebled the order for native plants for next winter as a starting point given the uncertainty of demand, although if demand exceeds this there will be provision to buy additional nursery stock on the open market if required.

9.4 A manager has been appointed to lead the Central Hawke’s Bay catchment management team who is a professional forester with extensive experience in forest establishment and management, the Emissions Trading Scheme and forestry grant management. The Manager will also assist the ICM Group in its work across the region.

10. Momentum is beginning to develop in the Council’s interactions with rural landowners around afforestation opportunities and this is a key foundation for HBRC’s planned programme of forestry investment.

Emissions Trading Scheme

11. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the market price for carbon sequestration and associated harvest liabilities are key determinant of the economics of forestry. The Government is proposing two sets of amendments to the ETS, which may materially affect the financial implications for Council’s proposed additional investment in forestry. The first set proposes to “strengthen the ETS framework so it is a credible and well-functioning scheme” to help NZ meet our climate change targets. The second set of proposed amendments relates specifically to forestry and proposes changes “to reduce complexity and other barriers to forestry owners being part of the scheme.”

12. A decision about whether agriculture will be part of the ETS is not part of the current consultation. The Government will make a decision on that in 2019 as informed by the findings from the Interim Climate Change Commission. Decisions on the treatment of agriculture under the ETS could have implications for the economics of land use and create further incentives for forestry establishment on more marginal agriculture land.

13. Council staff are currently reviewing the ETS discussion document to assess how the proposals might affect its current and future interests in forestry activities. Initial indications are that the proposed changes relating to forestry are generally positive for HBRC’s investment interests in forestry, rather than the proposals having negative impacts overall. The deadline for feedback on the ETS amendments is 5pm 21 September.

Provincial Growth Fund

14. Central Government funding for afforestation comes under the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), with specifically earmarked funding. Council staff are currently preparing proposals for funding to the PGF to support and accelerate key initiatives, these include:

14.1 Commercial Afforestation Scheme: Phase 1 – Forestry suitability and financial assessment and analysis (HBRIC led but delivered by an advisory team comprising Scion, Canterbury University Forestry School, PF Olsen and Comvita)

14.2 Erosion Control Scheme – Matched funding to scale up HBRC’s grant funding and support capability development (HBRC ICM Group led)

14.3 LiDAR – precision data capture across the region providing fine scale data for farm and forest planning, as well as improved monitoring and outcome tracking capability (HBRC Land Science led, in partnership with LINZ)

14.4 Stocktake of Natural Capital – Regional land/water/climate assessment and identification of opportunities for strategic investment (HBRC led, with proposed territorial authority partnerships)

15. These PGF proposals are being developed alongside a proposal from NKII to build regional capability to deliver a large-scale tree planting programme.

16. HBRC’s Group Manager of ICM is leading the engagement of regional councils with Te Uru Rakau / Forestry New Zealand (a division of the Ministry for Primary Industries) on the design of the funding criteria and allocation mechanisms for afforestation under the PGF. This follows the stage one analysis by regional councils, which identified that:

16.1 There are 1.15 million hectares of land in New Zealand that is classified as Highly Erodible Land, which does not have woody vegetation cover and is outside the Conservation Estate. Hawke’s Bay has 11% of the NZ’s Highly Erodible Land, which comprises 9% of total land in the region.

16.2 Across regional councils just over 100 full time equivalents work directly on erosion/sediment issues, supported by further capability in science, compliance and data systems. A proportion of this capacity is directed to riparian management which has biodiversity, stock exclusion and freshwater ecosystem co-benefits.

16.3 In 2017/18 there was $14.6 million of annual erosion related goods and services expenditure by councils. Of the $14.6 million, $9.2 million is specifically for erosion – (councils fund farm plans, provision of trees, and implementation costs) and $2.1 million specifically for riparian management. Current progress is estimated to be treating around 7000 hectares of land annually, which without acceleration would treat about 5% over the next decade,

16.4 Prior to the LTP increase in resourcing, HBRC had only 3% of the total regional council FTEs allocated to addressing erosion, despite having 11% of the NZ’s Highly Erodible Land. In terms of staff effort, Hawke’s Bay lagged behind Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Manawatu-Wanganui, Wellington, Taranaki, Northland, Southland and Canterbury. This analysis supports HBRC’s increased investment in the current LTP and the current ramping up of activity.

17. Led by the Council’s Group Manager ICM, the regional sector is now working with Te Uru Rakau officials on identifying priorities for addressing the deficits in land use advisory capability and funding identified in the stock take, as well as opportunities for further erosion control forestry research and mechanisms to ensure resources are deployed most efficiently across the sector. This work is aimed at informing a Cabinet paper due in October.

18. HBRC’s Chief Executive continues to represent the local government sector on the Forestry Ministerial Advisory Group, which is developing policy recommendations to Central Government on reducing barriers to forest establishment and improving the economic, social and environmental performance of the forest sector.

19. This ongoing programme of engagement with Central Government is intended to ensure the national policy and funding landscape supports HBRC’s contribution to achieving the objectives of the Kahutia Accord.

Decision Making Process

20. 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 “Forestry Investments Update” staff report.

Authored & Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Update on Tūtira Forestry Harvest

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on preparatory work to establish the necessary harvest infrastructure in preparation for the harvest of Council’s 114 ha pine forest within Tūtira Regional Park.

2. To provide an update on post-harvest replanting plans for Tūtira Regional Park.

Background

3. The land that is now Tūtira Regional Park was purchased by Hawkes Bay Regional Council in 1998 for the principal and statutory objective of soil conservation to maintain and improve the water quality in Lake Tūtira and Waikopiro, and the secondary objective of providing a quality outdoor recreation environment for the people of Hawke’s Bay.

4. One hundred and fourteen hectares of radiata pine were established for soil conservation and timber production from 1991 – 1998.

5. This paper is an update on work authorised by the Environment and Services Committee on 15 March 2017 in preparation for harvest and subsequent replanting of those trees:

5.1 Authority to enter an access arrangement, and proceed with Phase One of road construction through private property to the north of the Lake, following advice from Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust that use of the existing access would have unacceptable impacts on sites of significance.

5.2 Authority to seek proposals for construction of Phase Two of the infrastructure, and forest harvest from forest companies operating in Hawke’s Bay on the basis of a managed graded log sale approach, with specific attention on the methodologies proposed for mitigating the risk of sediment entering Lake Tūtira. HBRC staff to supply assessment and recommendations for a preferred proposal for Tender Committee consideration and acceptance.

5.3 HBRC staff undertake to provide a proposed replanting plan to Environment and Services Committee for consideration and acceptance.

Discussion

Phase One Road construction progress

6. Access agreement with commitment to permanent easement was negotiated with the neighboring landowner.

7. Construction and fencing of the first stage of roading is complete. The bridge over Pāpākiri Stream will be completed by November 2018.

Phase Two Road Construction

8. The next stage of access road construction comprises a further 2600m of road and a crossing over Kahikanui Stream. Work is scheduled to begin in mid-November 2018, and be completed before April 2019.

9. To minimise environmental risks, a comprehensive sediment management plan has been created, will be further developed with the successful tenderer and reviewed and closely monitored by HBRC. To minimise exposure of bare soil to rainfall, road construction will be carried out over the summer months and the road will be constructed in sections, with each section being metalled as soon as possible after completion.

10. An archaeological management plan has been prepared for the road construction due to the known historical Maori occupation of the area, and because the existing farm track will need to be widened at a point around 50m from a registered archaeological site. HBRC staff have walked the road route with an archaeologist and found no signs of further undiscovered sites.

11. The contract for this second section of road construction was tendered with a closing date of August 31 2018. The tender has been by invitation only from four local contractors with strong reputations for quality forestry earthworks, and will be awarded on the basis of the lowest submitted price meeting the given criteria.

Post-harvest Replanting

12. The post-harvest replanting plan will affect optimum harvest timing, and so needs to be confirmed before harvest can be tendered.

13. Two replanting options are presented to Council for information and feedback at this point. HBRC Staff will prepare a financial analysis and recommendation for Council to consider and endorse in the October Environment and Services Committee meeting.

14. Replanting Option One is a full replant of pinus radiata with a generous (20m) riparian margin on each side of streams within the forest.

14.1 Radiata pine is a rapid growing species with a wide site tolerance that quickly forms protective canopy cover and root mass to reduce erosion, while providing high economic returns through quick rotations of timber with well-established markets, and rapid carbon sequestration. It currently has no serious pest or disease problems.

14.2 Disadvantages of radiata pine in terms of soil conservation are the quick (~5 to 6 years) loss of root strength following harvest, relative to other (especially coppicing) species, and also the relatively short rotations (~27 years) of forest growth between the ‘windows of vulnerability’ associated with harvest . Other disadvantages often cited are the market and pest and disease risks, as well as the aesthetic impact associated with the overwhelming dominance of radiata pine in the New Zealand forestry landscape (~95%).

14.3 Especially recently, radiata pine has been associated with severe slash damage associated with extreme weather events. In practice this is mostly due to the fact that most plantation forests are radiata, rather than radiata being a casual factor. Management decisions, such as retiring very steep areas and riparian margins can reduce this risk.

15. Replanting Option Two is a composite option derived from a series of workshops held in 2017 to gain input from tangata whenua, community, and soil conservation experts into potential post-harvest replanting options.

15.1 The workshops were organised by HBRC Open Spaces Staff, and attended by HBRC Forestry Staff, Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust representative, soil conservation experts, and members of the Tūtira Community.

15.2 Workshop participants considered the management objectives defined in Regional Park management plans since 2004, and ascribed weighting to them as detailed following.

15.2.1 Soil conservation (35% weighting). Defined as protection of the soil from sediment loss, nutrient loss and supporting and promoting water quality improvement within Lakes Tutira, Waikopiro and tributaries.

15.2.2 Cultural values (15% weighting). Defined as encompassing hapū values for the Lakes and Takiwa. Considers contribution to and / or impacts on sites of significance within or neighboring the Tutira Regional Park.

15.2.3 Economic values (15% weighting). Overall financial return, considering costs to establish and maintain, net present value of potential returns to support / maintain water quality improvement initiatives.

15.2.4 Biodiversity values (15% weighting). Defined as contribution to enhancement of biodiversity values, including flora and fauna (excluding effects of water quality).

15.2.5 Landscape Amenity values (15% weighting). Defined as perceptual value to the wider community and park users on the landscape value and aesthetic quality.

15.2.6 Education and Recreation values (15% weighting). Defined as opportunity or effects on education and / or recreation.

15.3 A weighted multi-criteria analysis (MCA) matrix was developed and used to score the suitability of various replanting regimes according to the different values of the Park. The results of the MCA exercise (Appendix 1) saw five replanting options presented as potential alternatives to radiata pine as follows.

15.3.1 Commercial Native Forest (Weighted score of 4.6). Based on 50 year selective harvesting with up to four pruning events.

15.3.2 Native Regeneration via Nurse Crop (Weighted score of 4.3). Establish space planted nurse crop allowing native to regenerate naturally with pest and weed control.

15.3.3 Managed native regeneration (Weighted score of 3.75). Encourage native revegetation of the site with ongoing pest and weed control as required; Potential small return harvesting in longer term.

15.3.4 Arboretum / Park (Weighted score of 3.1). Mixed species, both native and exotic, planted in park-like manner, trees protected and area grazed.

15.3.5 Mānuka (Weighted score of 3.05). Planting of manuka similar to other areas of the park, allow for honey production.

15.4 The MCA was followed by a field trip and a land use capability assessment of the land. The results of the MCA and the land use capability assessment were used to create the attached replanting map of ‘The Composite Option’.

16. Other factors are important for Council to consider:

16.1 The primary statutory purpose of Tūtira Regional Park is as a Soil Conservation Reserve, and any replanting decisions must be consistent with that purpose.

16.2 Tūtira Regional Park is a Class Two Regional Park, and as such management must also maintain other values such as soil conservation, ecology, and recreation, cultural, historic and economic values.

16.3 The land in the Park, and of course the Lake and streams, are of great cultural and historic significance to Maungaharuru Tangitū hapū. The hāpu have statutory acknowledgement and ownership of parts of the Lake Bed and margins.

16.4 Significant investment of around $1 million is being made in roading, bridges, crossings, log recovery and processing sites, and other forest infrastructure to support harvest of the existing crop with least environmental impact. These costs comprise a third of the total gross log revenue from this first harvest. Once the harvest infrastructure is in place, subsequent harvest cycles will create less soil disturbance, and give significantly greater net returns.

16.5 Significant investment is occurring, and has occurred over many years, in water quality improvement initiatives in the Lake. The Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi Project has seen $644 000 invested in restoring the mauri of the Lake over the last two years, with a further $3.5 million over five years secured via the Te Waiu o Tūtira Project.

16.6 Tūtira Forest is currently the most profitable of all the HBRC Forests. Other blocks are limited by issues of erosion susceptibility, distance to port and mills, access issues, timber species of unknown marketability, and high maintenance costs associated with working around wastewater irrigation infrastructure (Mahia Forest). Ongoing returns from Tūtira Forest are critical for the profitability of the HBRC Estate as a whole.

16.7 Though permanent retirement of harvested land in native forest will have soil conservation benefits in the long term, because canopy cover and root establishment is much slower in regenerating native than in fast-growing, densely-crowned exotic species, the window of vulnerability to soil erosion post-harvest will be increased. Also due to their slower growth rates, native plantings are at increased risk from plant pests.

Harvest program

17. Harvest of trees as required to construct internal forest roading (road line salvage) is planned to be carried out in April-May 2019, with harvest proper beginning in October 2019 with Compartments 1/01 and 1/02 (on Forest Map attached).

18. Timing for harvesting the remainder of the forest has been scheduled for summer 2019/2020 (Compartments 1/03 and 1/04), but will depend on the replanting decision made. If the blocks are to be replanted in native nurse crop, the opportunity cost of the land, and therefore NPV will change, and harvest is likely to be delayed until more volume has been gained. Compartment 1/05 is scheduled for harvest in 2024.

19. Method of harvesting Compartment 1/03 is yet to be confirmed pending investigation of an archaeological site within the forest. If hapū and Heritage NZ are satisfied with the results of the investigation, a cable hauler will be placed on the site, and if not, an alternative site, of higher financial and environmental impact, will be used.

20. Harvest will be carried out as a summer-only activity.

21. Principle forest management companies in the region will be invited to competitively bid for harvest and sale of logs. A harvest plan that minimises and addresses the environmental impact of harvest has been created, and tenderers must be able to demonstrate their ability to meet or exceed the environmental benefits of this plan and to provide their own sediment control plans for earthworks and harvest. Compliance with these documents will need to be checked for their integrity and closely monitored by HBRC.

22. Budget for road construction and other harvest costs will be recouped on harvest of the trees.

Decision Making Process

23. 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 “Update on Tūtira Forestry Harvest” staff report.

Authored by:

Ben Douglas

Forest Management Advisor

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager
Asset Management

Gary Clode

MANAGER Regional Assets

Attachment/s

⇩1	Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)
⇩2	Tutira Forest Map

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Irrigation Check-up Programme 2017

Reason for Report

1. To provide the findings of the Irrigation Check-up programme carried out in 2017.

Background

2. Maintaining a high level of irrigation efficiency is one of the key building blocks to achieving Good Farming Practice and effective region wide water management. It can also contribute towards optimising crop quality and quantity.

3. The Irrigation Check-Up programme was established to be a hands on practical way of promoting efficient irrigation. The voluntary programme ran over the 2017-18 summer and is currently under consideration for following seasons. Irrigation NZ were key consultants for this programme.

4. Summer students worked with participants to check their irrigation systems and provide them with useful feedback and results. A survey was also used to find out about on farm water management practices and scheduling. In total 41 properties were assessed, which equated to 51 irrigation systems. This covered a range of land use and irrigation system types. Results can only be considered indicative as the sample was not randomly chosen.

Test Results

5. The programme involved a basic irrigation check on up to two irrigation systems for each participant/ manager. A ‘bucket test’ assessed Distribution Uniformity (DU) or Emitter Uniformity (EU) which checks how evenly the water is being applied and also compared target application depth to an actual application depth. This data was processed through the Irrigation NZ ‘Check-it Bucket Test App’ for pivot and hard hose systems, or the Irrig8lite software for dripline and micro sprinkler irrigation systems. General irrigation observations were also recorded.

6. Although most participants were put at ease and were confident to answer accurately, there was concern from the students that some responses were the ‘right’ answer, rather than reflecting reality. By participating in the programme however, all participants have shown they are aware of the importance of efficient irrigation. Understanding how well a given system is working is the first step in working towards efficient water use.

Uniformity (≥0.8 is accepted as the performance benchmark for uniformity)

7. The uniformity results ranged from very poor at 0.33 to excellent at 0.95.

8. 49% of all systems performed well with an irrigation uniformity of 0.8 or above and required little or no corrective actions, 24% of systems required some attention to improve the performance. Those that ‘Did Not Pass’ required more significant work.

9. Drip/ Micro systems performed reasonably well with 59% of them achieving an EU of 0.8 or higher. The pass rate for Pivot and Hard hose systems was much lower at 37%.

Target depth (within 10% of target depth is considered a suitable result)

10. A relatively low percentage of systems passed the application depth assessment (35%). A similar percentage did not know their target depth.

11. Those that did not know their target depth were all Drip/Micro. Initially this was concerning, however the data revealed that for most of this group alternative methods were used to schedule irrigation. Most used one or a combination of soil moisture metering, monitoring software and/or consultant advice to schedule irrigation. Some also consider irrigation in terms of litres per hour or litres per plant.

12. However, it is still important, for all irrigation system types, to be aware of actual application depth (mm) so consultancy advice can be acted on more effectively, allow for easier comparison with weather forecast information, and minimise environmental impact (drainage).

13. For some, the programme helped to inform participants of their system application depth.

Soil moisture monitoring

14. There was good uptake for soil moisture monitoring technology by participants. A combination of soil moisture meters, monitoring software and or a consultant to assist with irrigation scheduling was adopted by 67% of the participants.

15. How this information is used is the most important aspect. Of the group using some form of soil moisture monitoring, 73% used it ‘every time’ and only 6% used it ‘sometimes’.

16. Nearly all of those using consultancy services to schedule irrigation were Orchardists. Correspondingly the uptake for these services were low for all of the other land uses.

17. Those using ‘other’ methods to schedule irrigation were in most cases using methods such as ‘digging a hole’.

Age of infrastructure

18. The programme results showed that the age of infrastructure can be linked to both of the benchmarks assessed: uniformity and application target depth.

19. Reassuringly new systems were all performing as they should, with a 100% pass rate for uniformity and 80% for application depth (noting an ‘unknown’ response).

20. As systems approached the 10 year mark, there was a drop-off in performance indicating the need for better maintenance. For systems 15 years or older, maintenance requirement increased further and some could be reaching the end of their serviceable life.

21. From a regional water management perspective, future programmes could focus on the older irrigation systems to get the greatest potential gains.

Observations

22. The students recorded observations for the blocks they assessed and reported these back to participants. This assessment is subjective and did not seek to identify all potential issues.

23. Overall, some of the issues observed appeared to be similar, irrespective of a high or low uniformity test results, however, the extent of the issues appeared to be more significant in the poorer performing systems e.g. leaks became bigger/ increased in number for drip micro, or the presence of leaks in pivots became noticeable in the poorer systems.

24. The same issue observed could be caused by a number of different factors and could be a symptom of an underlying problem, e.g. water quality, pressure, well performance, pump performance etc. Basic field observations are recorded following.

Performance Level	Drip / Micro	Pivot / Hard hose
Main issues observed for systems with 0.8 and above DU results	· Mostly minor leaks, some tending to significant · Some sprinkler heads detached/missing · One to a few had disconnected lines, end plugs missing or lateral ends not closed off properly · Some end of row drippers not working · A range of sprinkler types · Slight algal growth · Variable dripper outputs · Some sprinklers not spinning	· Individual to a few sprinklers not spinning or spinning slowly · Individual to a few sprinklers dribbling · Individual to a few sprinklers partially blocked · Variable spray patterns · Minor chance of wind drift issues
Main issues observed (in addition to those above) for Drip/micro with below 0.8 DU results	· Significant leaks more prevalent · Many drippers not working throughout blocks · Many drippers emitting obviously (visually) more flow than others · Water quality issues causing blockages e.g. iron flakes, algae · Disconnected lines, end plugs missing or lateral ends not closed off properly · A significant range of sprinkler/dripper types within a block	· Many sprinklers not working · Many worn sprinklers · Sizable leaks between spans · Faulty end guns · Nozzles missing · Wind drift · Some ponding · A lack of run overlap

Performance Level

Drip / Micro

Pivot / Hard hose

Main issues observed for systems with 0.8 and above DU results

· Mostly minor leaks, some tending to significant

· Some sprinkler heads detached/missing

· One to a few had disconnected lines, end plugs missing or lateral ends not closed off properly

· Some end of row drippers not working

· A range of sprinkler types

· Slight algal growth

· Variable dripper outputs

· Some sprinklers not spinning

· Individual to a few sprinklers not spinning or spinning slowly

· Individual to a few sprinklers dribbling

· Individual to a few sprinklers partially blocked

· Variable spray patterns

· Minor chance of wind drift issues

Main issues observed (in addition to those above) for Drip/micro with below 0.8 DU results

· Significant leaks more prevalent

· Many drippers not working throughout blocks

· Many drippers emitting obviously (visually) more flow than others

· Water quality issues causing blockages e.g. iron flakes, algae

· Disconnected lines, end plugs missing or lateral ends not closed off properly

· A significant range of sprinkler/dripper types within a block

· Many sprinklers not working

· Many worn sprinklers

· Sizable leaks between spans

· Faulty end guns

· Nozzles missing

· Wind drift

· Some ponding

· A lack of run overlap

General programme outcomes

25. From a general uptake and motivation perspective, some participants were initially cautious of the programme. They were possibly concerned about the outcomes if they had poor results. Others who already suspected their irrigation system was not up to scratch, were keen to get their systems checked and find out how big the issue was. In some cases their system results helped the participant to prioritise repairs or push for system upgrades. For those with newer system this simply gave them reassurance that they were on the right track or highlighted if improvements were possible.

26. The most important aspect of the programme was whether the participants found the programme beneficial. The post programme survey revealed that there was a high level of satisfaction for those that responded. All respondents indicated both that they found their results data useful, and that they would participate in any future programme (12 respondents).

27. It was noted that all of the post programme respondents that had ‘room for improvement’ results were either ‘working towards improving their irrigation system’, or ‘working towards replacing their irrigation system’ (7/12 respondents). The remainder had irrigation systems that were operating efficiently so no immediate action was required.

Future of the Irrigation Check-up programme

28. To get the most gains, the programme results highlighted some specific areas that future work needs to focus on:

28.1. Robust irrigation decision making (pivot and hard hose systems)

28.2. Irrigation system management e.g. minimising wind effect (hard hose systems)

28.3. Knowing irrigation application depths (drip/micro systems)

28.4. The increasing rate of inefficiency as irrigation systems age and the lost productivity return associated with older inefficient systems

29. Increasing awareness of efficient water use and changing approach to irrigation (if required) were the key objectives of the programme. There is a change in Hawke’s Bay about how water is being managed e.g. the TANK Plan Change. It will take time for this understanding to result in behaviour change, but it is happening. Support and tools need to be in place to assist the necessary behavioural shift. The Irrigation Efficiency programme can assist with this.

30. In the establishment phase of this programme, data security was a concern by some industry groups. Protection mechanisms were put in place to prevent individuals’ data from being used out of context or for compliance purposes in the form of a participant agreement. The programme was established to promote irrigation efficiency without fear of repercussion. All participants are commended for participating and voluntarily taking steps towards efficient water use.

31. Council staff are currently considering whether to run this programme again, as a tool to assist irrigation consent holders with improving water use efficiency as part of Good Farming Practice. In order to do this, it is critical that the ‘good will’ engendered from the 2017 programme is maintained, with the overall goal being that all irrigation water users use water responsibly and effectively. Staff involved in this programme believe that the findings from 2017 demonstrate that this can be done effectively, in a positive way through the Irrigation Check Up programme.

32. Overall the message and understanding of water efficiency was well received, and further work with consent holders would be beneficial for maximising the region’s water resources.

Decision Making Process

33. 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 “Irrigation Check-up Programme 2017” staff report.

Authored by:

Monique Benson

Water Management Advisor

Approved by:

Mark Heaney

Manager Client Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Biodiversity Foundation Update

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the work of the Biodiversity Foundation.

Background

2. Over the last four years Hawkes Bay Regional Council has participated along with a range of regional stakeholders in a process to create a regional Biodiversity Strategy.

3. The implementation of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy resulted in the development of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Action Plan 2017-2020. Three entities, the Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Foundation, the Biodiversity Guardians of Hawke’s Bay and the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Forum, were created to lead and nurture this work. Each has a separate and complementary function, together they form the umbrella group known as Biodiversity Hawke's Bay.

The Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Foundation

4. The Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Foundation will enable the Strategy through raising and securing funds needed to rapidly grow the level of biodiversity related activities in our region. The work of the Foundation will complement activities by Councils and other agencies and will be additional to those agencies business as usual. The Foundation has a target of building a $10M Endowment Fund within ten years that will, in perpetuity, provide funding for achieving the visions and objectives of the Strategy.

5. To date, the Biodiversity Foundation have secured some funding through the Long Term Plan process. They submitted to HBRC, Napier City Council and all the district councils for contributions to their Endowment fund, which has resulted in securing the following:

5.1 $200,000 per annum for 4 years from HBRC

5.2 $50,000 (one–off) from Napier City

5.3 $10,000 (one–off) from Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

6 Since these results were announced, the Foundation have met with all of the Mayors and/or CEs from across the region to discuss ways to work together better in the future. They were encouraged by these conversations and will apply to the upcoming Annual Plans in the hopes of seeking additional funding, particularly from Hastings District Council and Wairoa District Council.

7 The current Board of Trustees consist of 6 trustees, which includes Charles Daugherty (Chair), Des Ratima, James Palmer, Connie Norgate, Mike Halliday and Mark Ericksen. Other points to note regarding the Foundation are:

8 The Biodiversity Foundation are currently developing a Corporate Sponsorship model which they will roll out at an event at Mission Estate on the 9th October.

9 Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay have partnered with the business brand platform “Great Things Grow Here” and the corporate sponsorship launch event will be hosted in partnership with Great Things Grow Here.

The Biodiversity Guardians of Hawke's Bay

10. The Biodiversity Guardians of Hawke's Bay act as Kaitiaki for the Vision and Goals of the Strategy. A formally constituted group, the Guardians oversee the functions of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Forum (see below), and provide a platform for agencies, businesses and community groups to connect and collaborate. Anyone can join the Guardians and membership benefits include quarterly newsletters, invitation to forum events and networking opportunities with other like-minded people.

11. The Guardians became an Incorporated Society on the 24th April 2018 and have a management committee who will be voted on at their Annual General Meeting. The current interim Management Committee include Connie Norgate (Chair), Marie Taylor (Deputy Chair), Kay Griffiths (Treasurer), Amelia McQueen, Keiko Hashiba and Mark Mitchell. The first AGM will be held on the 24 September.

12. The Guardians have a 4 tier membership structure:

12.1 $20 for Individuals

12.2 $50 for Families, Schools and Marae

12.3 $200 for NGO’s and small businesses

12.4 $1,000 for Corporates.

13. The Guardians launched the Action Plan at an event held on May 22nd 2018, which coincided with International Day of Biological Diversity. The event was a huge success with over 200 people attending and over 50 people signing up as Guardians on the night. Professor Bruce Clarkson from the University of Waikato was the key note speaker and signed the University up as the first Corporate Guardian. The Hawke’s Bay Airport are now also a Corporate Guardian.

14. To date, 80 individuals, 3 small businesses, 2 NGO’s and 2 corporate members have signed up as Guardians. Infoodle, a membership management database has recently been purchased with sponsorship from local businessman, Richard Croad. Now that there is an automated way to manage membership it will be easier to build and manage a membership base.

The Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Forum

15. The Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Forum is a platform for anyone and everyone to connect into all the things happening in biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay from environmental education to hands-on restoration programmes. It intends to grow the conservation community and connect conservation organisations and community based environmental groups.

16. The inaugural Biodiversity Forum event will be hosted by Central Hawke’s Bay District Council and the Aramoana Environmental & Education Charitable Trust in Aramoana on the 28 October 2018. This event, named the Bio Buzz, will be the closing event of the Central Hawke’s Bay Spring Fling and was announced in the Spring Fling mail-out which went to 20,000 households around Hawke’s Bay. The event will showcase a range of local restoration projects and also feature speakers from Enviroschools, the local farming community and Iwi.

Building profile and connecting with our community

17. A dedicated website for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay has been developed in collaboration between the Guardians and HBRC Communications team. The new website (www.biodiversityhb.org) is designed to become a hub for information and notifications where the community, businesses and agencies can access, donate, and signup for membership.

18. Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay are also engaged in a range of activities to build profile and connect to the wider community. This includes activities such as:

18.1 Being a partner with the Hillmac Junior School and Hillmac Intermediate School speech completion which has a theme of Biodiversity in our backyard. Over 15 schools across Hawke’s Bay are taking part in this competition with finals being held at the National Aquarium in late August and early September.

18.2 Invitations to speak at the ECO conference on the 8th of September and the National Wetland Symposium on the 26th September

18.3 Participating in the Hawke’s Bay show 17 - 19 October.

19. All of these are opportunities for Hawkes Bay Biodiversity to educate the public, build brand profile and grow membership.

Biodiversity Implementation Plan 2017-2020 priority actions

20. The Biodiversity implementation plan outlines a range of activities to be delivered over the next three years to make progress towards the longer term Regional Biodiversity Plan outcomes. The table below summarises the progress on six priority actions in the Action Plan.

Update on Actions

Objective 1: Native Species and Habitats

· Ecosystem mapping and Ecological Prioritisation

· Ecosystem mapping has been completed for the HB region.

· Ecosystem prioritisation using a spatial planning tool called Zonation has been completed. Across the region this equated to 900 terrestrial sites, 10,034 segments of rivers and 77 lakes. Based on representativeness, connectivity and condition, the Top 30% sites were identified. (For further details please refer to the Ecosystem Prioritisation paper, presented to the Environment and Services Committee on 21 Feb 2018).

· Zonation working group consisting of the members of the former Implementation Planning Group has completed the desk-top interpretation of the data.

· First 100 (out of 900) terrestrial sites are selected for piloting ‘management prescription development’, which is a process and template to develop management plan and estimate costs. A Workshop was held in August which will produce templates for these 100 sites, which will support decision making by HBRC and other stakeholders with an interest in regional biodiversity.

Objective 2: Integrating Māori Values

· Development of a cultural framework and survey of taonga sites

· Connie Norgate (DOC, Chair of the Guardians, Trustee of the Foundation) and Des Ratima (Trustee of the Foundation) are leading this piece of work.

· The Foundation is to adopt a Statement of Intent to integrate cultural elements throughout their work.

Objective 3: Partnerships

· Establish HB Biodiversity Guardians and Foundation

· Develop Statutory agencies biodiversity working group to cover and co-ordinate policy and operational best practice

· Both HB Biodiversity Guardians and the Foundation are now legal entities.

· Building the brand and growing membership through a series of events and promotions in the coming months is a key priority.

· HBRC is to facilitate a Statutory Agencies Working Group. Details of its administration, agenda and work programmes are currently under development. It is aimed to have the first meeting in the next 3-5 months.

Objective 4: Community

· Establish a HB Biodiversity Forum

· Develop a process for proactive approached to private landowners

· Inaugural Forum Event hosted at Aramoana on the 28^th October as part of the Central Hawke’s Bay Spring Fling.

· Marie Taylor (vice-chair the Guardians) and Mike Halliday (Trustee of the Foundation) are leading work to better integrate private land owners into the regional biodiversity context.

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 “Biodiversity Foundation Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Genevieve Bennett

Project Manager HB Biodiversity Strategy

Campbell Leckie

Manager Catchment Services

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 05 September 2018

Subject: Freshwater Improvement Fund Projects Update and Environmental Hot Spots Projects Wrap-up

Reason for Report

1. To provide an update on the Freshwater Improvement Fund and Hotspots environmental projects.

Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF): Lake Tūtira (Te Waiū o Tūtira, The Milk of Tūtira), HBRC partnership with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust

2. Project vision: ‘To restore the mauri of Lakes Tūtira, Waikōpiro, and Orakai, making a place that families can happily return to, and where children can swim.’ By empowering and aligning community, implementing well-researched actions now, the goal of restoring the mauri of Lakes Tūtira and Waikōpiro, making them swimmable by 2020, is achievable and realistic.

3. Project objectives:

Objective One	Iwi/hapū, māori landowners, farmers, community and local authorities are aligned in their vision for Tūtira through establishment of an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP) and Farm Environmental Management Plans.
Objective Two	Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust (MTT) will develop and establish a cultural monitoring programme (CMP) and will support the water quality education programme in Tūtira.
Objective Three	The Papakiri Stream will be reconnected to Lake Tūtira, and an outlet will be created by 2021 at the southern end of the lake complex, to provide longitudinal flow and fish passage, improving the mauri of the lake.
Objective Four	Sediment mitigations will be established at critical source areas within the Kahikanui and Te Whatu-Whewhe sub-catchments, reducing sediment entering the lake system.
Objective Five	An aeration curtain is installed in Lake Tūtira, improving the water quality to a swimmable level

4. Project Manager: Te Kaha Hawaikirangi.

5. Project progress update: Project Te Waiu o Tūtira formally started on 22 March 2018.

5.1. The Project Team (PT) and Project Governance Group (GG) continue meeting on a regular basis. The Projects Health and Safety (H&S) Plan has been implemented, after workshops at PT and GG meetings. The projects communication’s plan is also operative with a number of communications initiatives underway, including an email update that provides its subscribers a snapshot of the various initiatives underway, or about to start in Tūtira.

5.2. The first activity within the project is developing an Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP). A working group met to outline a framework for the ICMP. Contractor Billy Brough has completed one, of up to three, community workshops. The ICMP will be completed November this year.

5.3. Catchment based analyses of erosion-prone areas in the Lake Tūtira catchment will be finalised by the end of August. This analysis will feed into the ICMP and individual Farm Environmental Management Plans (FEMPs).

5.4. During September, the catchment/land-management advisor will begin site visits to individual properties within the catchment. Their role will be to meet landowners/occupiers and provide an onsite assessment of their property. The advisor will develop an environmental management plan with the owner to provide potential improvements for better on-farm practices to support better environmental outcomes. The focus will be on sediment and nutrient management but may include biodiversity and biosecurity aspects relevant to the property.

5.5. Once the environmental management plan is completed, a works programme for the year will be developed and funds allocated to assist landowners with completing works within their plan.

5.6. The re-connection of the Papakiri stream was not delivered during the last financial year. Further progress with landowners is required. Previous conversations with landowners confirm their aspirations for the Papakiri stream to be re-connected; however, the detail is yet to be agreed. Engineering designs for the stopbank strengthening and the reconnection of the Papakiri stream have been created.

5.7. In our original project plan we planned to install an aeration system into Lake Tūtira during winter 2018; this has been moved to 2019. Our water quality team want to observe the existing aeration system in Waikopiro for another summer. Last summer’s data showed a critical loss in oxygen in Lake Waikopiro while the bubbler was operating. Further monitoring and analysis is required before installing an aeration system in Lake Tūtira.

5.8. Sediment trap designs are completed. The Tūtira Sediment Retention Plan is awaiting approval from the Governance Group before starting works late September.

5.9. The installation of instruments for monitoring water flow and quality in the Papakiri stream is yet to be undertaken. The main reason for this delay is due to a design change to the bridge, on which the instruments were originally going to be attached.

5.10. A floating jetty has been installed on Lake Orakai. This jetty is a platform for water technicians to walk on so they can collect water samples from within the lake, rather than the lakes edge. The data collected will aid decisions for design and installation of the proposed southern outlet connection between Lakes Orakai and Waikōpiro.

5.11. Maungaharuru-Tangitū have held two wananga to establish the mauri monitoring programme. Equipment for the programme has been purchased, and trails of the programme will be undertaken this year.

5.12. Maungaharuru-Tangitū have continued to plant thousands of trees around Lake Tūtira, closing the gap on the targeted 42,000 native plants. With over 35,000 native trees planted over the last two years.

6. Project budget update: The total project cost $3.35m. The total expenditure for Year 1 totalled $213,242.58. Year 2 budget estimated is $1,132,735.37. The main project expense for this financial year is the construction of sediment traps. Other key deliverables include the completion of the ICMP, developing Farm Environment Management Plans and distributing the first round of funding from the project’s catchment subsidy scheme to assist landowners deliver actions within their FEMPs.

Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF): Whakaki Lake (Sunshine, wetlands and bees will revitalise the taonga of Whakaki)

7. Objective: We want to revitalise Whakakī Lake while supporting sustainable land use. Our goal is to help the water recover so tuna are fit for consumption and people can swim safely.

8. Project Manager: Nicolas Caviale- Delzescaux.

9. Project progress update

9.1. HBRC $200k Hot Spot Whakaki funding (over 5 years, totalling $1m) is HBRCs contribution in our application to MfE’s Freshwater Improvement Fund. As part of this process HBRC are required to secure all relevant project resource consents prior to submitting our Stage 2 FIF application to MfE. To do this we have focused on community engagement and consultation with affected parties. Firstly, we needed endorsement from the Whakaki Lake Trust, otherwise there was no point proceeding.

9.2. At a Whakaki Lake Trust meeting on Saturday 11 August 2018, the Whakaki Lake Trust endorsed the Freshwater Improvement Fund, with some conditions that we accept. We are finalising the consenting documentation that includes details of the adjustable weir, water level management, recirculating wetland and Waikatuku realignment. Once WLT have signed an affected party form we will meet with other affected parties.

9.3. During the community engagement process, we identified different ways of managing water levels. These propositions have been assessed in detail by HBRC staff. One option includes manuka honey farming on the low lying areas that would help transition landowers away from grazing and towards a more ecologically sensitive land use for these vulnerable areas. This is being investigated further with potential Nga Whenua Rahui involvement.

9.4. Following on from last year’s on the ground action using Hot Spot Whakaki budget. Alternative water supply was to be completed in June. However, due to wet conditions, water tanks have not been installed in their final location on top of the hill. This will be done when conditions are safer (September). This investment was key, as it will allow for the retirement of all the leased blocks along the Rahui Channel. As time goes by, Hereheretau Station is leasing more and more land along the channel. This helps the retirement projects as the station bring its own water that helps overcome the issue associated with a multitude of land parcels. The project could not fund alternative water supply for each parcel of land.

9.5. It will take time to complete the process prior to submitting our FIF application. Most likely, we will submit our application early 2019. If successful, project commencement will be February/March, which only leaves a few months for any deliverables to be completed within that first project year, ending 30 June 2018. Therefore, we are assessing options for completing small-scale initiatives to keep momentum going within Whakaki using hotspot funding during this pre-application process.

9.6. Lake Te Paraoa is at the heart of the Whakaki 2N/ Iwitea vision. A 3.8km fence was built and protects a biodiversity jewel and bird life haven. The next step will be to establish vegetation around the lakes edge. A small scale planting project will take place (2500 trees, all natives) with support from the community. This planting will allow us to better understand where we can and where we can’t establish trees with reference to fluctuating water levels.

9.7. Manuka trials. 500 manuka plants will be established in early September to test their ability to grow in different site locations (wet feet, drier grounds, proximity to the sea, wind etc.). This will confirm suitability of these areas for manuka growth before large scale plantings occurs.

9.8. Rahui channel fencing and planting. Discussions are underway with the Community and it is likely that we will continue the work started last year and extend the fencing programme by building 2.2km of new fences. This would allow the complete stock exclusion of the Rahui channel in its lower reaches. Weed control could be undertaken in order to control Pampa and gorse in preparation for our planting programme. A community planting day will allow us to continue the planting started last year and bring the community together, with an initial target of 2500 trees.

Hot Spot: Lake Whatuma $200k

10. Lake Whatuma is an important habitat for wildlife, but has poor water quality at times because of sediment and bird life. It can have low water levels in dry periods, and plant and animal pests’ impact on habitat health.

11. This year our focus is on collaborating with tangata whenua, and other key stakeholders, to establish options for Lake Whatuma. We want to help create a foundation that will provide a platform for establishing a shared vision and collaborative decision making, to purse potential actions for enhancing Lake Whatuma. A part-time project manager will be used to assist with the development of the project.

Hot Spot: Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu (Ahuriri Estuary)

12. Project vision: ‘To work with Mana Ahuriri and associated hapu, Napier City Council, Hastings District Council , Department of Conservation, other landowners and businesses in this area - a national treasure - to clean up water entering the estuary, remove pests and restore the environment to good health.’

13. Project objectives:

Objective one	To restore water flow between the upper and lower estuary by removing patches of Ficopomatus that have formed weirs bunding the estuary.
Objective two	Working with landowners to reduce sediment and nutrient input into the catchment waterways and ultimately, the estuary through subsidising fencing and planting.
Objective three	Undertake a significant ‘whole of stream/estuary mouth’ restoration to improve water and habitat quality and improve fish access.
Objective four	Water movement and contaminant transfer will be modelled; information to support understanding environmental flow requirements will be gathered.

14. Project Manager: Te Kaha Hawaikirangi.

15. Project budget update: $200k

Budget	Deliverables
$20k	Ficopomatus removal
$80k	Potential Wharerangi Stream Ecological Restoration
$60k	Catchment works
$40k	Catchment Hydrology
$200k

15.1. Ficopomatus removal: To estimate the total areal extent of Ficopomatus establishment in the estuary. To remove biomass to try and reduce foothold.

15.2. Potential Wharerangi Stream Ecological Restoration: To work with landowners and DoC to establish an ecological restoration plan, and undertake works to improve this system for better flood, water quality and ecological outcomes.

15.3. Catchment works: Continue to work with landowners to support areas identified in the Ahuriri Catchment Land Action Plan, focusing on mitigating landslide erosion (the major long-term source of sediment) and streambank erosion (the regular and short-term source), and to encourage riparian fencing and planting.

15.4. Catchment Hydrology: To continue with SOURCE model development to identify water pathways and contaminant transfer mechanisms to support management of nutrients and bacteria. To continue to gather information to support the development of a better understanding of the environmental flow needs of the Ahuriri Estuary.

Hot Spot: Marine

16. Project vision: To increase our understanding of our marine environments and how they operate to promote a healthier more resilient Hawke's Bay Marine environment.

Project objectives:

Objective one	To identify the extent, structure and qualitative assessment of biological composition of the Wairoa Hard; Springs Box, Clive Hard and Southern HB subtidal reef system (to be defined).
Objective two	To characterise current and historic Hawke Bay sediments and sediment sources, and assess levels of variability.
Objective three	To work with landowners in identified as sources of sediment, nutrients and physical disturbance to encourage riparian fencing and planting.

17. Project Manager: Anna Madarasz-Smith/ Oliver Wade

18. Project budget update: $200k

Budget	Deliverables
$65k	Subtidal Habitat Investigations
$95k	Sediment Characteristics and Behaviour
$40k	Porangahau Estuary Catchment works for Protection and Enhancement
$200k

18.1. Subtidal Habitat Investigations: Undertake a qualitative assessment of the epifauna of the Wairoa Hard, complete habitat mapping of the Clive Hard and undertake qualitative assessment, and undertaken habitat mapping and zonation/biological assessment of a southern Hawke’s Bay reef system to be confirmed.

18.2. Sediment Characteristics and Behaviour: To continue investigating sediment characteristics and variability in order to understand how sediment contribution from land may be affecting habitats in Hawke Bay.

18.3. Catchment works: Undertake a SedNet assessment of the Porangahu catchment; develop a plan of works for assisting landowners to fence and plant areas to reduce sediment and nutrient input into the Porangahau Estuary. Focus on achieving positive outcomes for remaining seagrass area of the estuary.

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Environment and Services Committee receives and notes the “Hotspots Environmental & Freshwater Improvement Funded Projects 2017-18 Annual Report”.

Authored by:

Nicolas Caviale-Delzescaux

Land Management Officer - Extensive Hill Country

Te Kaha Hawaikirangi

Project Manager Environmental Hotspots

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist Marine and Coast

Oliver Wade

Scientist

Jolene Townshend

Project Manager, Resource Management

Approved by: