Agenda of Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 04 December 2019

Subject: Confirmation of the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee Terms of Reference

Reason for Report

1. This item provides the proposed Terms of Reference for the Environment & Integrated Catchments Committee (EICC) for the 2019-22 Triennium for Council’s adoption.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Council officers recommend that the Terms of Reference proposed (attached) is confirmed, with the inclusion of any amendments agreed at the meeting. The terms of reference provide for the EICC’s oversight of:

Environment & Integrated Catchments (Place Based)
Asset management
Biosecurity
Climate change and carbon reduction policies
Environmental science, including State of the Environment monitoring
Engineering
Catchment Services
Water Advisory Services & Water Information Services
Maritime Navigation & Safety
Open Spaces and Regional Parks
Reporting including: · Sustainable Homes (incl Clean Heat) Scheme · Erosion Control Scheme

Executive Summary

3. In response to feedback provided by councillors at the 6 November 2019 Regional Council meeting, staff have amended the Terms of Reference for the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee initially proposed by:

3.1. including the climate change and carbon reduction policy work in the terms of reference for the EICC

3.2. moving oversight of the consents and compliance functions (Regulation) into the Corporate and Strategic Committee terms of reference.

Background

4. In previous triennia, the Environment and (Services) Integrated Catchments Committee has considered aspects of Council’s operational environmental functions including:

4.1. resource management

4.2. flood protection and drainage asset management

4.3. regulatory responsibilities

4.4. environmental performance trends and State of the Environment environmental monitoring

4.5. reviewing responses to emerging and significant environmental issues.

Decision Making Process

5. Council and its committees are 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. Council is required to (LGA sch.7 cl.19(1)) hold the meetings that are necessary for the good government of its region

5.2. Council may appoint (LGA sch.7 cl. 30(1)(a)) the committees, subcommittees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies that it considers appropriate

5.3. Given the provisions above, Council can exercise its discretion and make these decisions without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee:

1.1. Receives and considers the “Confirmation of the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee Terms of Reference” staff report

1.2. Confirms the Terms of Reference for the Committee, including amendments agreed at the 4 December 2019 meeting.

2. The Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant and that Council can exercise its discretion and make these decisions without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

2.2. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee, incorporating amendments agreed by the Committee at its 4 December 2019 meeting, for the 2019-22 triennium as follows.

Insert text of agreed ToR

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Lead

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1

Environment & Integrated Catchments Committee Terms of Reference for Confirmation

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 04 December 2019

Subject: Pandora Pond Water Quality Monitoring

Reason for Report

1. This report provides an update to councillors on the water quality in Pandora Pond, Ahuriri.

Executive Summary

2. Water quality entering the Ahuriri Estuary is managed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in accordance with the Resource Management Act.

3. The science programme is run by the Integrated Catchment Management Group as part of the Marine and Coast team and contributes to the Council’s strategic goals of swimmability and contaminant reduction.

Background

4. The Ahuriri Estuary Napier, is a significant ecological and recreational resource for the Hawke’s Bay community. It is recognised as a nationally significant wildlife and fisheries habitat, and a nationally important example of tectonic processes. Natural and human induced changes to the estuary over the last century have considerably changed the estuary form.

5. As one of the few sheltered, tidal lagoon estuaries within Hawke’s Bay, Pandora Pond provides for a number of recreational opportunities including swimming, kayaking, sailing and waka ama.

6. The health of people undertaking these activities may be compromised, however, by the presence of faecal contaminants that have the potential to cause illness. These may enter the estuary from sources such as stormwater, overland flow or sewage discharges.

7. During the 2017-18 and 2018-19 summer period, a number of samples of faecal indicator bacteria exceeded national guidelines for contact recreation.

8. Concern was also raised that this was linked to health impacts, and exceedances also resulted in the Iron Māori cancelling the swim part of the course in 2018.

9. This purpose of this report is to provide Council with the updated information relating to water quality of the Pandora Pond, and work that has been undertaken to increase our understanding of potential health risks.

Discussion

10. Microbiological water quality monitoring has been undertaken for Pandora Pond since before 2000. This sampling is undertaken in line with national guidelines on microbiological water quality for marine and freshwater recreation areas (2002).

11. Water samples are analysed for the faecal indicator bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) in freshwater, enterococci in saline waters, and both indicators in brackish waters. These bacteria are not illness causing in themselves, however have been correlated with the presence of pathogens associated with faeces in water that can cause illness.

12. In previous reports Pandora Pond has been described as ‘Fair’ for recreational activities (Madarasz-Smith, 2014). This rating indicates that the area is ‘Generally satisfactory for swimming, though there are many potential sources of faecal material. Caution should be taken during periods of high rainfall, and swimming avoided if water is discoloured’.

13. Between 2000-01 and 2018-19 E. coli was monitored 263 times in Pandora Pond with nine exceedances (97% compliance with guidelines). Eight of the nine exceedances (89%) occurred between 2017 and 2019. During 2017-2019 compliance with guidelines was 90%.

14. Between 2000-01 and 2018-19 enterococci was monitored 286 times in Pandora Pond with 17 exceedances (94% compliance with guidelines). Eleven of the 17 exceedances (65%) occurred between 2017 and 2019. During 2017-2019 compliance with guidelines was 86%.

15. Given the Pond’s high usage and results that indicate a higher rate of exceedances of health guidelines in recent years, HBRC commenced a programme looking at how we can improve our monitoring and communication around health risks for people using the Pond. The programme also aims to identify the source/s of faecal material to better guide management.

16. In 2018 HBRC successfully gained funding through Envirolink to lease a ColiMinder™ from NIWA. The ColiMinder™ uses enzyme activity as a proxy for faecal indicator levels but can produce a result in 15 mins compared to 24 hours for current methods.

17. A comprehensive monitoring and investigation project was undertaken between January and May 2019.

18. Over 700 samples were collected and analysed using the ColiMinder™. Paired samples were also analysed using traditional methods, and environmental data on rainfall, tides, salinity and turbidity were also collected.

19. Correlations between traditional and ColiMinder™ analyses were not observed, nor were correlations between environmental data and ColiMinder™ results. Data mining may elucidate relationships that are not obvious.

20. Faecal source analyses indicate the presence of bird faeces in dry weather periods, followed by ruminant sources during wet weather.

21. Sheep and cow faeces was detected from the Thames/Tyne confluence.

Consultation

22. Communication has been undertaken on the water quality of the Pandora Pond and wider Ahuriri Estuary with a number of organisation and entities. This includes previous HBRC committee meetings (Environment and Services Committee, Regional Planning Committee), Mana Ahuriri, Te Komiti Muriwai o te Whanga, general public through walk and talk series and school presentations.

Next Steps

23. Staff are working on an Envirolink application for NIWA to look at the data obtained during the ColiMinder™ study and determine whether any further actions can be taken.

24. Monitoring is continuing through the Recreational Water Quality Monitoring project, catchment works are continuing through the Ahuriri environmental improvement (previously Hotspots) programme, and consenting processes are underway for the pumped drainage into the estuary.

25. Success of this work needs to include the understanding that the area is within a gazetted wildlife refuge, and that faecal material from birds is a part of the system, and may in fact increase if work to improve habitat quality is successful.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

26. Hapū associated with Te Whanganui A Orotū have a strong affiliation with the Ahuriri. Water quality issues are of importance to hapū in this area.

Decision Making Process

27. 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 Integrated Catchments Committee receives the “Pandora Pond water quality monitoring” staff report.

Authored by:

Anna Madarasz-Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist Marine and Coast

Approved by:

Dr Jeff Smith

Manager ScienCE

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee

Wednesday 04 December 2019

Subject: Right Tree Right Place

Reason for Report

1. The “Right Tree, Right Place” (RTRP) project was initiated by the previous Council, and executed by HBRIC with co-funding from Te Uru Rakau/Forestry New Zealand, to examine afforestation opportunities for the Hawke’s Bay region. The project has progressed to a point where the timing is appropriate to discuss Council’s role in the broader regional afforestation context. The importance of Council building clarity on its role in afforestation investments, internal and community capacity building and industry relationships relating to forestry, are key to a strategic discussion on regional afforestation. In particular Council’s ability to deliver the outcomes it seeks and the relationship between; fully grant funded, public/private and fully commercial investments in delivering those outcomes is important.

2. The region faces significant challenges around the adverse impacts of sediment, erosion and its response to the climate change challenge. In addition there are opportunities for carbon sequestration and regional carbon neutrality, as well as improved climate resilience. Diversification and inclusion of more trees in the agricultural landscape can also lead to reduced externalities, increased productivity and improved landscape biodiversity and function.

3. It is also essential that Council build an understanding of the environmental, community, economic and associated wood flow and processing implications of any programme of investment. These factors have also been addressed in the RTRP work to date.

Discussion

4. Over the next two to three decades planting trees will be critical to achieving a range of outcomes within the Hawke’s Bay region. As a result of this, planting trees is likely to see significant investment by a range of investors. This investment is already occurring now through investments such as the Council’s $30m Erosion Control Scheme (ECS) funding, the One Billion Trees central government funding and private investment ranging from large-scale plantation forestry conversions to on-farm riparian planting.

5. Within Hawke’s Bay, Council initially identified 252,000ha of the region as a priority for consideration for planting, to reduce areas of worst soil erosion and highest sediment yield. Of this, a 100,000ha planting programme is predicted by Council modelling to reduce sediment yield from this most eroding land by as much as 50%. There is expected to be around 20,000 ha planted by grant funding initiatives directly supported by Council such as through the Erosion Control Scheme. This regional context represents significant challenges, risks and opportunities. The “Right Tree, Right Place” (RTRP) project is seeking to provide information to support quality decisions on the future of our region’s planting programmes. However the strategic context within which any afforestation investments will need to be established by Council.

6. The RTRP project has identified that complementarity of Council driven, diversified afforestation activity with pastoral farming will be essential. Processes around farm environment management planning, arising principally from freshwater reform, will drive key interventions. It will be essential to build on, and in some cases start, conversations and develop landowner understanding about afforestation options, and to build capacity in catchment management teams to ensure maximum synergy with Erosion Control Scheme and other Council and central government programmes. The social and human element of why people do/do not plant trees is a critical part of the potential success of any Council investment in the RTRP.

7. To effectively progress appropriate planting over the next few decades Council needs to consider and agree its strategic approach to afforestation capacity, relationships and investments. In the short term council needs to clearly define what it believes its role is regarding forestry, where and how it invests and how it supports the necessary capacity building and community engagement to support uptake of any programme. This will be important to guiding staff focus and priorities. In the longer term a regional afforestation strategy outlining Council’s goals, investments, integration with policy such as the NES for production forestry, how it works with the forestry industry and other key stakeholders will be important. Correct alignment with existing Council programmes on water, biodiversity and climate will take considered design in order to be effective. Improving landscape function requires multidisciplinary involvement. Clarity of role will allow Council’s current direct investments in the Erosion Control Scheme, the Tutira high UMF Manuka plantation, its current forest estate and partnerships like the Kahutia Accord to be delivered within a strategic context. A strategy will also guide potentially significant future investments that may be considered. Ongoing engagement is occurring between HBRC and Te Uru Rakau around on farm advisory capability and this will also be integrated with RTRP as appropriate.

8. The “Right Tree Right Place” (RTRP) project has delivered:

8.1 Key spatial, forest systems, social research and other outputs for better regional context and decision making on forestry investments over the next two decades or more

8.2 Broad financial indicators for different tree species and forest systems, site suitability information with an associated range of assumptions and caveats

8.3 An initial assessment of ecosystem benefits from afforestation with opportunity for later integration with ecosystem prioritisation and biodiversity programmes

8.4 Base information to allow meaningful of integration Council forestry activity with the farming community, forest industry, infrastructure, and toward more functional landscapes, resilient communities and robust economy

8.5 Co-funding of the RTRP project to date has been 50:50 of up to $470K between HBRIC and Te Uru Rakau/Forestry New Zealand with current project to close end December 2019

8.6 Summary report from RTRP Project is included as Attachment 1.

9. While it supports decision making, the RTRP project does not answer the strategic and policy questions around Council’s role, investment focus and investment willingness in regional afforestation.

10. Key questions include:

10.1 How best to integrate afforestation activity within the farming landscape to provide better landscape function and business and community resilience?

10.2 Where and how does Council invest to deliver the best outcomes?

10.3 Who manages which investments? Is it Council, HBRIC, or another investment partner? Is this different depending on the investment context?

10.4 What is Council’s role relative to other potential investor roles? For example should Council be putting its capital into investments that the commercial market will fund i.e. the Pinus radiata market is working well, would council invest in this?

10.5 What is the likely quantum of investment and type of funding (grant, debt, investment portfolio) to drive meaningful change in the agreed timeframe? What is the degree of change sought?

10.6 What are the returns expected from different classes of investment?

10.7 What is the overarching strategic framework that guides current and future investments?

10.8 How should Council engage with forest investment entities outside its own direct investment strategy?

10.9 Where are the areas where the market will not operate to plant the right trees and what is the impact of this? What are the opportunities for public/private partnerships and what might the nature and benefits of these be?

11. The answers to these questions are critical to providing staff guidance and focus and would support the development of a regional afforestation strategy and business case. They will also be important to other investors and stakeholders as to where the priority and focus will be for Council over the longer term.

12. The current lack of a clear strategy for afforestation investment also increases the risk that:

12.1 Outcomes desired by the community will not be achieved

12.2 Investment will not be targeted and optimised to deliver the best returns possible for its investment context

12.3 Opportunities to leverage additional funding will not be best utilised.

Next Steps

13. A series of potential case studies have been identified to apply and test RTRP assumptions and supporting information and package this for the farming community and catchment management teams.

14. An exercise will be run in parallel with further due diligence, in order to build understanding of required resourcing and the necessary approaches for Council to approach afforestation activities successfully.

15. Should council believe it has a role, each investment area will require a significant due diligence, development, and implementation process before Council is potentially going to invest. The Erosion Control Scheme (ECS) is a good example of this with 18-24 months from the initial discussions through to its implementation in the field by staff. Significant resource was also required for the ECS due diligence and should Council decide it has a role in other large scale afforestation investments this resourcing will need to be considered. For example the $47m Trees on Farms investment which Council considered a decade ago cost around $400,000 over an 18 month due diligence.

16. It is proposed that this further analytical and testing work be funded over the next twelve months from existing council resources in Integrated Catchment Management and the Erosion Control Scheme in the lead up to the 2021-2024 Long Term Plan. It is intended that an Afforestation Strategy be developed for Council during this time to inform the LTP. It will be important to develop this Strategy in conjunction with the Council’s developing response to climate change and central government’s inclusion of sediment attribute in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Strategic Fit

17. Regional afforestation programmes or the “Right Tree in the Right Place” are a critical part of delivering many of the key outcomes desired by our community over the next 20-30 years. Increased biodiversity, reduced sediment and nutrients in water and carbon sequestration, alongside other benefits, will substantially be driven by planting programmes.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

18. There are a range of potential positive benefits and some risks likely from a Tangata Whenua perspective in regional afforestation investments. The Kahutia Accord is an example of a partnership with Iwi in this area. Sediment in freshwater bodies and the coastal environment is a master stressor and detrimentally impacts upon taonga species with importance for mahinga kai and cultural practice. Therefore afforestation is a key intervention for addressing these impacts. Restoration of mauri and manawill also be a significant outcome of appropriate afforestation activity and guidance will be sought on how best to achieve such gains.

Financial and Resource Implications

19. There are no direct immediate financial and resource implications from this report. Financial implications may arise when council has clarified what its role in afforestation investments is, where /how it may invest, and the scale of investment.

20. Any due diligence into new investments in afforestation through public/private partnerships or commercial mechanisms will require significant resourcing.

Decision Making Process

21. 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:

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

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

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

21.4 The persons affected by this decision all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources

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

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

Recommendation

That the Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee receives and considers the “Right Tree Right Place” staff report.

Authored by:

Campbell Leckie

Manager Catchment Services

James Powrie

RedAxe Forestry Intelligence

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

⇩1