Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council
Late Items
Date: 23 February 2022
Time: 1.30pm
|
Venue: |
Council Chamber Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street, NAPIER |
Agenda
Item Title Page
Information or Performance Monitoring
13. HBRC Internal Review – Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation 3
23 February 2022
Subject: HBRC Internal Review – Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation
Reason for Report
1. This paper provides a response to the 8 topics of internal review (Internal Review) requested by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (Council) at their meeting on 28 July 2021.
Background /Discussion
2. On 28 July 2021 a paper was presented to Council seeking agreement to the Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation and Execution Funding Model report which had been through the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Joint Committee on 4 June 2021 and Council’s Environment and Integrated Catchments Committee on 23 June 2021.
3. On 28 July Council resolved:
“That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
3.1. Receives and considers the “Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation & Execution Funding Model” staff report.
3.2. Agrees in principle to the outcome of the Funding Review and recommendations of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee; being:
3.2.1. Endorses the findings of the review undertaken by Mr Raynor Asher QC titled “Review and Recommendations for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee”, including the following key recommendations, for the purposes of commencing consultation under s.16 of the Local Government Act 2002:
3.2.2. That the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council takes charge of all aspects of adapting to and mitigating coastal hazards risks on the Clifton to Tangoio Coast
3.2.3. That the Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council enter into a memorandum of understanding setting out agreed positions on this arrangement
3.2.4. That an advisory committee is formed by elected representatives from Napier City Council, Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Hastings District Council, Mana Ahuriri, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust to support forward work
3.2.5. That a Transition Plan is prepared to set out the timing and orderly process of transitioning functions to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council in accordance with the terms set out in the memorandum of understanding.
3.3. Directs staff to prepare a draft Memorandum of Transition between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Napier City Council and Hastings District Council that details the proposed operational regime for implementing coastal hazards mitigation projects under the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy, including but not limited to:
3.3.1. Recognition and acknowledgement of legal responsibilities
3.3.2. Assessment of risk and liabilities associated with the transfer to HBRC of the management of existing coastal hazards mitigation assets held by Napier City Council and Hastings District Council and the transfer of existing rock revetments at Waimarama, Clifton, Cape View Corner and Ahuriri
3.4. Directs staff to report back to Council on a pathway for an internal review of the following areas of HBRC in relation to the implementation of the Coastal Hazards Strategy:
3.4.1. Organisation wide impacts
3.4.2. The most effective organisational model for implementation
3.4.3. Suitability of policy and regulatory framework
3.4.4. Science output requirements
3.4.5. Obligations to tangata whenua
3.4.6. Ratepayer equity, including an assessment of the full financial cost to all ratepayers in delivering the strategy
3.4.7. The impacts of climate change on the adaptive pathways in light of the most recent projections
3.4.8. An assessment of the carbon footprint arising from implementing the strategy.”
4. Further workshops were subsequently held with Councillors to confirm the scope of the Internal Review (topics outlined under 3.4 above).
5. This report presents each Internal Review topic, the confirmed scope (bold italicised text) and information collated in response.
Topic 1: Organisation Wide Impacts
Provide an assessment of staffing requirements and structural changes required to successfully deliver projects under the Strategy.
6. Should Council decide that it should be responsible for delivery of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy then the following delivery model is proposed.
7. The delivery model is identical to the way flood control and drainage schemes are provided across Hawke’s Bay under a targeted rate model.
8. HBRC currently manages $206 million of flood control and drainage assets which includes civil, mechanical and electrical assets. The upper bound of the estimate for new works proposed under the Strategy is $26.4 million (see discussion under Topic 6 of this report) for civil works which represents an 11% increase in asset base over a 10-year time horizon.
9. Table 1 below presents the proposed delivery model and anticipated costs.
Table 1 Proposed delivery model and anticipated costs.
|
Group |
Regional Assets: Strategic Asset Management |
Regional Assets: Operational Asset Management |
Regional Projects |
Science |
|
Tasks |
Progress and update the Strategy as required Develop business cases for new works Develop an Asset Management Plan including maintenance and renewal strategy as input to the Infrastructure Strategy and Long Term Plan |
Monitor and inspect existing and new structures Detailed engineering inspections Monitoring signals and triggers Managing operational renourishment programmes |
Consenting and capital project delivery |
Strategic assessment Preferred option analysis Consent application review (regulatory function) Data collection, monitoring, analysis |
|
New Staffing |
1 additional FTE ($150k p.a.) |
Managed within existing team (7 FTEs) |
1 additional FTE ($150k p.a.) |
Some elements partially managed within existing team Determination will be made on whether to outsource remaining elements or increase capacity |
|
External / specialist technical support |
Procurement of additional specialist advice $200k p.a |
Procurement of additional specialist advice $300k p.a ($100k for specialist advice plus $200k provision for consent conditions) |
Procurement of additional specialist advice funded through cost recovery mechanism |
Engaged where independence from consenting functions required - Funded through cost recovery mechanism |
10. It is noted that cost of consenting has been built into the project estimates (Topic 6) as a key project activity.
11. Works Group have in the past undertaken maintenance of coastal structures for HBRC and other Councils. It is anticipated that they can undertake some of the maintenance work required as and when required. It is not envisaged that Works Group would scale up for the provision of maintenance renourishment as envisioned by the current pathways. This work typically requires large volumes of shingle over relatively short time periods and is most efficiently delivered by the contracting industry.
12. The estimated additional funding described here has been included in the financial assessment tables. Financial information will be updated as the strategy processes through consenting, design and construction phases.
Identify the number of new Full Time Equivalent (FTE) roles considered necessary, based on FTE requirements to deliver capital works programmes under HBRC’s flood control schemes.
13. The estimate for FTE staff required to deliver the Clifton to Tangoio Strategy is 2 (refer Table 1) in addition to specialist consultant and contracted resources the costs of which have been accounted for in strategy estimates.
14. This resource is based on an assumption that the program is optimised for a smooth delivery profile. Should significant construction be required over a short period of time (for example IRG deliver) then additional project managers will be required.
Discuss assumption that resourcing levels will be designed to address project delivery, operations & maintenance and monitoring.
15. Detailed design and consenting work to be mostly outsourced as this is short duration and specialist in nature and there are benefits to maintaining independence from Council’s regularly functions.
Topic 2: The most effective organisational model for implementation
Describe how physical works programmes would be effectively implemented in practice.
16. The physical work programs would be delivered through the following generic asset management process.
16.1. The asset management plan will be based on the work of the Strategy and clearly outline an investment pathway, the primary option(s) to be delivered in an approximate timeline, with triggers identified for initiation of each project. This investment profile will be reflected in the Infrastructure Strategy, the Financial Strategy and the approved LTP. The Infrastructure Strategy is required to outline a minimum of 30 year investment plan for each activity.
16.2. Staff will monitor the project triggers and when triggers are met will initiate the capital works project by defining the key attributes, activities and outcomes required. Where background data collection may be required for consenting purposes this will be commenced as an early deliverable without committing to the full project at that time.
16.3. The project will be assigned to a Regional Projects project manager who will develop a detailed work plan, schedule, procurement plan, cashflow and review the project estimate using current pricing information.
16.4. The project manager with high level support from the asset manager and detailed support from specialist consultants and contractors will deliver the work packages required for delivery of the asset. This would typically include:
16.4.1. Definition - document precisely what is required and what are the key steps of delivery
16.4.2. Procurement strategy - describing how the various work packages will be procured and the approximate value of each work package
16.4.3. Design - which would consist of concept, engineering design and detailed design
16.4.4. External approvals - including any land matters and consents
16.4.5. Construction - likely seasonal
16.4.6. Handover - to operations including as built drawings, operational and maintenance plans and any warranties
16.4.7. Project Closeout - financial closeout of the project.
Discuss delivery model, which is to be based on HBRC flood control works; key components include that the works will be led out of HBRC’s Asset Management Group, funding is confirmed through usual Long Term Plan processes, with triggers and thresholds driving the actual work programme in any given year.
17. It is recommend that Asset Management Group would deliver the coastal strategy through minor amendments to its existing structure using the same core asset management framework that the delivers flood control and drainage activities.
18. All funding requirements for the new activity will be described in a new Coastal Asset Management Plan which will feed into the Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy and Long Term Plan. All decisions on the final shape of Coastal Strategy will be agreed by Council through adopting the Long Term Plan every 3 years, with ability to adjust through the annual plan cycle.
19. Although the major investments for the coastal strategy will be outlined in Infrastructure and LTP based on the best information at the time, projects will only be commenced when they meet their trigger conditions. This is best practice Asset Management to only invest in new infrastructure when it is required. This means that adjustments will be made to the investment profile and thus project delivery based on the monitoring of the coastal environment and sea level rise. Because the strategy is adaptive, adjustment, particularly in the 10-30 year view should be expected.
Topic 3: Suitability of policy and regulatory framework
Summarise findings of reports by Mitchell Daysh Limited looking at the suitability of the existing policy framework and consentability issues for works proposed under the Strategy.
20. The Strategy’s Stage 4 Regulatory Workstream reports by Mitchell Daysh Limited in 2020 focused on two principal tasks:
20.1. Summarising key planning and regulatory documents that could impede or support implementation of the preferred pathways including a consideration of 'moral hazard’ risks; and
20.2. Summarising actions to ensure short-term adaptation responses can be implemented, including use of several case studies.
21. Attachment One provides a summary of those two reports and their recommendations/conclusions. This same summary was presented to the 19 November 2021 meeting of the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee.
Present scope for next phase of work under the Regulatory Workstream which will respond to recommendations made in the Mitchell Daysh reports.
22. The Mitchell Daysh Limited reports make recommendations focussing on opportunities for amendments to existing planning documents under the RMA, i.e.:
22.1. Hastings District Plan
22.2. Napier District Plan
22.3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (including the Regional Policy Statement) and
22.4. Hawke’s Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan.
23. In particular, the Policy and Regulatory Review Report included the following recommendation:
23.1. “Amendments will be required to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan, the Hastings District Plan and City of Napier District Plan to ensure the objectives, policies and methods within these documents enable the outcomes sought by the Strategy. This is twofold –
[a] greater recognition of the implementation of short-term hazard adaptation responses (including benefits) and
[b] the avoidance of future land use intensification that will hinder long term delivery of the Strategy and increase moral hazard.”
24. There are two key current or emerging opportunities for incorporating elements of the Stage 4 workstream recommendations into statutory planning documents.
Review of Napier District Plan
25. An opportunity to embed provisions proposed Napier District Plan to:
25.1. Give greater recognition of the Strategy’s short term adaptation responses, including benefits
25.2. Avoid further land use intensification in locations that will hinder long-term delivery of the Strategy.
25.3. Provisions could be inserted during the drafting phase (now to mid-2022) and/or via formal submissions after the new proposed district plan is publicly notified.
Review of HBRC’s RMA plans (Kotahi)
26. An opportunity to embed provisions in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS), Regional Coastal Environment Plan and the remaining parts of the Regional Resource Management Plan to:
26.1. Provide policy recognition and support of implementing outcomes as per Strategy
26.2. Give greater recognition of the Strategy’s short term adaptation responses, including benefits
26.3. Avoid further land use intensification in locations that will hinder long-term delivery of the Strategy
26.4. To ensure the Strategy is afforded greater weight in resource consent decision-making processes, embed Strategy’s key features into the Regional Policy Statement (and regional plans) as relevant, alternatively run a Local Government Act ‘special consultative process’ on the Strategy to provide further structured opportunity for public participation in Strategy development
26.5. Timing wise, Kotahi programme is aiming for public notification as a proposed plan in late 2024.
27. Recommendations from the Strategy’s Stage 4 Regulatory Workstream have been added to the Kotahi project’s ‘to-do-list’ for the appropriate policy options evaluation, drafting and public consultation. But the Kotahi Plan alone cannot deliver all of the relevant policy interventions due to allocation of roles and functions under the RMA to territorial authorities and the regional council.
28. Council’s 2021-31 Long Term Plan does not provide capacity for preparation of a stand-alone RPS/regional plan change embedding the Strategy earlier than the extensive Kotahi plan.
29. There is some interest amongst Hawke’s Bay Council leaders in the preparation of a high-level regional spatial plan, but no firm commitment nor resourcing of that initiative exists at present across the five HB councils. Preparation of a regional spatial plan is very likely to be further influenced by timing and content of the Resource Management system reforms (discussed below).
30. In terms of immediate next steps arising from the Regulatory Workstream, the Napier District Plan and the Kotahi Plan should remain the focus.
31. Each of these are current and emerging opportunities to further embed relevant elements of the Strategy into statutory RMA planning documents. That drafting can occur somewhat simultaneously with ongoing work on the remaining Stage 4 workstreams (e.g. design, funding, managed retreat and triggers in particular), plus the three Councils’ joint work on the Memorandum of Transition (MOT) and other associated transitional arrangements.
32. Beyond the local planning framework, the Government has signalled its intention to repeal the RMA and replace it with three new pieces of legislation:
32.1. a Natural and Built Environments Act (NBEA)
32.2. a Spatial Planning Act (SPA), and
32.3. a Climate Change Adaptation Act (CCAA).
33. The Government has also proposed the creation of a National Planning Framework (‘NPF’) that would be a package of national policy directives and national regulations under the new system. Proposals have included a significant reduction in regional and district plans to just fourteen plans (one combined plan per region). This presents opportunities for greater integration of regional and district planning provisions, but will also carry challenges and uncertainties, particularly regarding timeframes.
34. Timeframes for introduction of Bills for the NBEA and SPA have slipped. These are now earmarked to be introduced in the third quarter of 2022 as Bills for Select Committee process. Meanwhile, a Bill for the CCAA is now mooted to be introduced in 2023. Transitional arrangements from the RMA-system to the new resource management system are currently unknown. These transitional arrangements will be critical if:
34.1. the new system is to be an improvement over the current system and attain the goals of the reform, and
34.2. the new system may offer timely cost-effective opportunities to further implement the Strategy.
35. The Government has also established a Review Panel which is currently undertaking a review of local government arrangements. The Review Panel is expected to finalise its report and recommendations by April 2023. It is too premature to speculate what (if any) of the Panel’s findings may then be progressed in any reshaping of local government.
36. For now, roles and responsibilities for oversight and preparation/review of RMA planning documents are assumed to remain as they are at present. It is noted that the draft Memorandum of Transition includes a specific clause to confirm that nothing is proposed to change with respect to these functions.
Topic 4: Science output recommendations
Summarise expected science requirements to support implementation of the Strategy – e.g. environmental baseline monitoring, effects assessments to support consenting (applicant and effective regulatory functions), consent condition and triggers monitoring requirements, etc.
37. While the addition of coastal hazard protection to the Hawke’s Bay coastline undoubtably creates positive benefits for assets and communities protected by these mitigations, consequences on the coastline ecology and natural character also need to be assessed to determine where true cost/benefit lies in terms of the choice of mitigation options.
38. This has been considered more recently under the Coastal Ecology Workstream of the Strategy, with a report commissioned to assess the potential ecological consequences of mitigation in a staged approach. Initial work has been completed to assess the amount of current information in the project area, undertake a high-level assessment of what the key considerations on coastal ecology may be, and assess the information gaps.
39. While this work sets a start point for the assessment of ecological considerations that may be required to support an assessment of environmental effects, there are several areas that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council need to consider relating to science required to support the Strategy, and the best options for the procurement of this science.
Strategic assessment
40. Physical interventions proposed for the current workstream in the Strategy potentially affect approximately 52% (21km) of the exposed sand/gravel beaches in the project area (Clifton-Tangoio). The effects of these interventions on natural character and Policy 13 (d) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) need to be considered.
41. The Kotahi Plan Change presents an opportunity to implement this national direction and provide strategic oversight in setting the policy framework for the Strategy to ensure that activities are afforded the appropriate status, and that matters for consideration are outlined.
42. While this is predominantly a planning/policy output, science input will be required to support the technical basis for this work. This has been resourced through internal science time to support the Kotahi Plan Change process.
43. This is within existing resource budget.
Preferred option analysis
44. While ecological effects were considered in the multicriteria decision making tool looking at specific preferred mitigation option, no technical specialist was involved in this process. The ‘cost’ of interventions on coastal ecology is an area that needs to be considered in more detail when confirming a preferred option.
45. There has been no resource to date budgeted for this activity in the Strategy. Therefore, no internal science time is available at this stage, although this is a task that would benefit from being internally filled as it likely that similar information will be required for other areas or at other times.
46. Further resource is required if this activity is to be undertaken using internal science resources.
Support for consenting
47. Once a preferred option has been confirmed, an assessment of environmental effects needs to accompany any application for resource consent. This will require a detailed technical review of how any proposed activity may affect coastal ecology – species, habitats, processes and patterns. This assessment includes the scale or magnitude of any effect, whether the effect is temporary or permanent, and what the future state of the area in the proposed activity may look like.
48. To maintain independence from the consent applicant and consenting authority (which would be required if the proposal outlined in the Memorandum of Transition is adopted), this activity should be undertaken by outsourcing to a suitability qualified and experienced consultant.
49. No internal science resource is required to complete this work.
Assessment of consent once received
50. Once the resource consent applications have been received by the consents team, an audit of the information provided in the AEE relating to coastal ecology is required to verify that the appropriate information has been considered, and that the conclusions reached are supported by the data provided.
51. To maintain independence from the consent applicant and consenting, this activity is best undertaken by outsourcing to a suitability qualified and experienced consultant.
52. No internal science resource is required if this is to be outsourced.
Monitoring of consents
53. Monitoring conditions will be added to ensure that actual effects do not exceed those predicted in the AEE. These are undertaken by the consent holder (typically on behalf); however, a Council-based review of the monitoring information once returned is required. This can be undertaken externally, however internalising this activity can promote a better linkage between observed impacts and the intent of the policy.
54. Further resource required if this activity is to be undertaken using internal science resources.
55. No internal science resource is required if this is to be outsourced.
Discuss coastal ecology workstream underway and findings of draft gap analysis
56. Table 2 outlines the structure of the Coastal Ecology workstream.
Table 2: Coastal Ecology Workstream structure and key tasks
57. Dr Shane Kelly from Coast & Catchment were engaged to undertake the gap analysis which is the first phase of this work.
58. Dr Kelly's report notes that there is a significant body of existing data and knowledge about coastal ecology in the Strategy area, however there are gaps, and for consenting purposes site and activity specific information will be required.
59. The following potential effects / key issues / values areas are described and the state of knowledge and knowledge gaps for each noted:
59.1. Smothering by deposited or redistributed sand and gravel
59.2. Accelerating the spread and proliferation of marine pests
59.3. Sediment suspension
59.4. Burying benthic communities beneath structure
59.5. Hardening of the shoreline
59.6. Effects caused by changes in coastal processes
59.7. Physical disturbance of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) during construction
59.8. Dune planting
59.9. General effects on Ahuriri Estuary
59.10. General effects on coastal vegetation
59.11. General effects on birds
59.12. General effects on fish.
60. The report notes that it will also be of critical importance to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed interventions.
61. With the completion of the gap analysis, TAG will now seek to commence the second phase of work (engagement) under the Coastal Ecology Workstream. This will enable a full suite of knowledge gaps to be identified, and a monitoring programme to be designed and implemented.
Topic 5: Obligations to Tāngata Whenua
Identify key processes and elements relevant to Strategy development and implementation – e.g. Treaty obligations, Treaty settlement outcomes (e.g. statutory acknowledgements) Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, Māori Standing Committee, Regional Planning Committee, etc.
62. Council has general obligations to establish and maintain processes to provide for opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes.
63. There are no specific statutory obligations to involve tāngata whenua in the Joint Committee. However, from 'day 1' the Joint Committee's terms of reference established roles for three entities (Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust).
64. Tāngata whenua interests and entities within the Strategy area are many, layered and varied. In no particular order, existing interests include those set out in Table 3.
Table 3 Existing interests of Māori and mana whenua groups in the Strategy area
|
Governance |
Membership appointees to the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 Joint Committee Membership appointees of the Regional Planning Committee Appointees to Māori Committees at each of the three partner councils Passing of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Act 2021 formalises arrangements for Te Komiti Muriwai o Te Whanga7 (NB ‘Te Komiti’ has been operating on interim settings for past few years). |
|
Treaty settlement legislation (and Post- Settlement Governance Entities) 8 |
Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Act 2021 (PSGE is Mana Ahuriri Trust) Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Act 2018 (PSGE is Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust) Maungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Act 2014 (PSGE is Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust) Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015. |
|
Taiwhenua |
Two of the six Ngāti Kahungunu Taiwhenua: Te Taiwhenua o Te Whanganui ā Orotu and Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. |
|
Marae |
Seven marae directly or indirectly affected by coastal hazards in the Strategy area are Kohupatiki, Matahiwi, Petane, Ruahapia, Tangoio, Waiohiki and Waipatu |
|
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act |
No orders granted for Customary Marine Title (CMT). No orders granted for Protected Customary Rights (PCR). High Court decision issued December 2021 finding in favour of several applicants for PCRs and CMTs. Details of those orders are subject to a second High Court hearing in mid-2022. Several other applications for PCRs and CMTs are yet to be heard by the High Court spanning the Strategy area near Awatoto and south to Clifton. |
|
Resource Management Act |
No Mana Whakahono a Rohe arrangements with Council are in effect. Te Whanganui ā Orotu have initiated preliminary negotiations for a Mana Whakahono a Rohe arrangement with Council which would cover part of the Strategy area.
Statutory Acknowledgements arising from the following Treaty Settlement legislation: o Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Act 2021 o Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Act 2018 o Maungaharuru-Tangitū Claims Settlement Act 2014 Iwi authorities for RMA purposes (according to Te Kahui Mangai website) in addition to the PSGEs and Taiwhenua above are: o Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated o Ngāti Pārau Hapū Trust Iwi management plans received by Council to be considered in RMA decision-making within the Strategy Area are: o Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan o Ngaruroro Values to Attributes (2016) o Tutaekuri Awa Management and Enhancement Plan (2015) o Ngāti Kahungunu Taonga Tuku Iho (1992) o Mana Ake – Nga Hapu o Heretaunga (2015) |
65. Naturally, there will be some commonalities or synergies in some of these interests (e.g. Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust as having role in governance; is an iwi authority for RMA purposes, an applicant under Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and also has Statutory Acknowledgements from Treaty settlement legislation). However, some interests and entities are more unique.
Re-confirm marae / PSGE / Taiwhenua / Iwi organisations with interests in the Strategy area
66. As noted above, the interests are many, layered and varied.
67. Table 3 summarises the marae, post-Settlement Governance Entities, Taiwhenua and other iwi organisations with key interests in the Strategy area. There is also land that falls within the jurisdiction of the Māori Land Court under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 within the Strategy Area.
68. Attachment Two provides an indicative snapshot further breaking down the parties and their principal interests.
Summarise mana whenua involvement in Strategy development to date
69. Mana whenua engagement has occurred through four key approaches:
69.1. Post Settlement Governance Entity appointments to the Joint Committee since inception in 2014
69.2. Assessment Panel representation through 2017-2018
69.3. Regional Planning Committee / Māori Committee reporting
69.4. Direct engagement approaches throughout the Strategy development process, noting this has not resulted in substantive discussions.
70. Through 2021 and into early 2022 a series of community workshops were also held to test further work developed under the Strategy. Mana whenua participation was invited, and some initial attendance occurred, however this has dropped away.
Highlight issues that have been raised by mana whenua to date
71. A Cultural Values Assessment was undertaken for the Strategy in 2017, with that outcome directly informing the consideration of options through the Assessment Panel process. The report’s author (Aramanu Ropiha) was also part of and contributed to the Assessment Panel process.
72. Substantive feedback from mana whenua was largely given during the Assessment Panel work in 2017-2018.
73. Mana whenua Representatives recorded the following overriding factors that informed their approach to considering options to respond to coastal hazards risks:
73.1. Preferred that a beach be maintained where possible for coastal access / use purposes
73.2. Accept that in general we should let nature take its course in preference to hard intervention
73.3. Preferred that the coast is held in as natural a state as possible – the ‘vista’ is important
73.4. Prefer not to split communities artificially (e.g. retreat the line which picks winners)
73.5. In general, no sites of historic significance are considered to be affected be the pathways – therefore the focus of our scoring is on current use
73.6. Do want to see historic values recognised / commemorated as part of any future coastal works
73.7. Where habitat can be protected, enhanced or re-created that is a strong benefit
73.8. The above factors are informed by the principles of whanaungatanga, kaitikitanga, mauri, and the relationships between tangaroa, tawhirimatea, ruamoko.
74. Two specific further matters were also recorded:
74.1. A key concern that beach nourishment activity did no cause impact on reef areas / sea life; and
74.2. The presence of an urupa in Whirinaki that will be a threat from coastal erosion into the future.
Summarise mana whenua engagement approach, current activities, next steps
75. The most recent mana whenua engagement plan was developed in mid-2021 with input and endorsement from the Joint Committee, Regional Planning Committee and Māori Standing Committee.
76. The plan outlines how the Strategy proposes to engage with mana whenua in the lead up to the formal Strategy consultation process.
77. This pre-consultation step was considered important to ensure that mana whenua are informed about the proposal, and able to provide feedback into the process before formal consultation commences. The engagement plan recognises that there are multiple parties to engage with ahead of formal LGA consultation, including those set out under Topic 5 of this report.
78. Mana whenua engagement commenced in accordance with the engagement plan last year, however COVID-19 restrictions in August-September (and ongoing) impacted the Project Team’s ability to engage face to face. As an interim measure, a pre-recorded presentation was circulated and feedback was sought via email.
79. The engagement has followed an extensive process with multiple approaches made (marae, taiwhenua, PSGEs), however only two hui have been confirmed and held (Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga at their Te Runanganui o Heretaunga hui and Matahiwi Marae). The impacts of COVID and a busy schedule for mana whenua have contributed to the limited uptake.
Topic 6: Ratepayer equity, including an assessment of the full financial cost to all ratepayers in delivering the strategy
State working principles (as informed by LGA s.101) around beneficiary pays approach – moderated as necessary for affordability
80. Funding for the Coastal Hazards Strategy is determined by Council through its Revenue and Financing Policy and its associated Rating Policy.
81. The Revenue and Financing Policy sets out, at a high level, the funding tools that will be used to fund a given activity. Then the funding tools are applied through Council’s rating policy and the Funding Impact Statement.
82. Currently, the Coastal Strategy development process is funded jointly and equally by all three partner Councils ($100,000 each per annum). Council funds its contribution through a uniform targeted rate (fixed amount) on all properties in the Napier City and Hastings District Council areas.
83. Council also contributes to the beach renourishment programme at Westshore, which is funded through the general rate applied across the region based on land value.
84. If Council agrees to take responsibility for managing and funding coastal hazards mitigation projects into the future, it will need to review and determine funding mechanisms. This means reviewing the Revenue and Financing Policy, which involves a two-step process. This is a political process that requires councillors to look at the activity and make their own collective determination on the factors set out in steps one and two below.
85. Step One - s101(1)(a) of the LGA 2002
85.1. Determine the community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes
85.2. Distribution of benefits – determine who gets the benefit. The whole or part of the community or selected individuals?
85.3. Determine the period over which the benefits are expected to occur
85.4. Determine the extent that any actions or inactions contribute to the need to undertake the activity (exacerbators)
85.5. Determine the costs and benefits of funding the activity separately from other Council activities.
86. Step Two
86.1. After Council has completed step one (and not before step one is completed) Council then looks at the various funding tools such as fees & charges, loans, reserves, targeted rates and general rates to be used to fund the activity.
86.2. Then, supported by modelling and analysis, Council considers the specifics of how much is charged to individuals and groups. How, for example, the proportion to be collected from a targeted rate is applied and who pays, which properties pay, and the basis for rating as allowed within the rating legislation based on area, land value, capital value.
87. Until Council completes step one of the Revenue and Policy review it is difficult to present any modelling of how cost will be distributed for works proposed under the Coastal Strategy. That is why the analysis presented to date has focussed on the total rates impact (impact on total rates requirement).
Re-look at modelling on costs and rating impacts provided to date, test assumptions, test costs used, update if required
88. The project team has developed high level costings for each of the first steps of the pathways, which involved identifying a number of potential design variants. Depending on the design variant selected, costs vary significantly. From these variants, recommended options for each coastal unit have been validated through further discussion with members of the community panels in workshops held through 2021.
89. For implementing the first action in all pathways, capital costs of the preferred design variants have been estimated at between $9.4 million and $26.4 million, and annual operating costs at between $2.7 and $4.6 million.
90. These costs estimates were developed through budget price quotations from industry, based on the concept plans provided for the groyne construction and gravel and sand nourishment projects proposed in the preferred design variants. Included in these costs are estimates for detailed design, resource consents, carbon emissions offsetting and other costs. This costing exercise is presented in the report Short-term concept design and costing - Clifton to Tangoio 2120 Coastal hazards strategy - Stage 4 - Design workstream[1].
91. The cost estimates have been presented to Council previously, and the project team consider that the cost estimates and assumptions used are still appropriate at this time. More detailed and accurate costs could only be developed with more detailed design, which would occur in the leadup to the consenting phase of work.
92. Based on these cost estimates, previous financial analysis presented to Council took an approximate midpoint (un-inflated) of $15 million in capital and $3.6 million in annual operating costs. This analysis is presented again below based on the 2021-2031 LTP period, however compared to previous information presented to Council the timing of expenditure under the Strategy has been adjusted (pushed out) to reflect the indicative timeframe outlined in the draft Memorandum of Transition[2]. To present a fuller picture of potential costs, staff have also produced tables reflecting the upper end of the cost estimate, of $26.4 million in capital and $4.6 million annual operating costs.
Table 4 - Mid Range Cost example - Uninflated Operating Costs over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
Operating Budget - Renourishment |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1,000 |
2,000 |
2,500 |
5,500 |
|
Operating Budget - staff |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
2,100 |
|
Strategy Review |
- |
- |
- |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
1,200 |
|
Total |
300 |
300 |
300 |
600 |
1,600 |
2,600 |
3,100 |
8,800 |
Table 5 - Mid range Cost example - Uninflated Capital Expenditure over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
New Assets - 50 Year design life |
250 |
250 |
500 |
4,000 |
4,000 |
4,000 |
2,000 |
15,000 |
Table 6 - High Cost example - Uninflated Operating Costs over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
Operating Budget - Renourishment |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1,278 |
2,556 |
3,194 |
7,028 |
|
Operating Budget - staff |
383 |
383 |
383 |
383 |
383 |
383 |
383 |
2,683 |
|
Strategy Review |
- |
- |
- |
383 |
383 |
383 |
383 |
1,533 |
|
Total |
383 |
383 |
383 |
767 |
2,044 |
3,322 |
3,961 |
11,244 |
Table 7 - High Cost example - Uninflated Capital Expenditure over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
New Assets - 50 Year design life |
440 |
440 |
880 |
7,040 |
7,040 |
7,040 |
3,520 |
26,400 |
93. When considering the rating impact, forecast operating and capital expenditure has been inflated using the 2021-31 LTP assumptions. Capital expenditure is modelled for repayment over a 20-year term. Table 8 (midpoint estimate) and Table 9 (upper estimate) below shows the rate requirement based on the illustrative expenditure above, including debt servicing.
Table 8 - Mid Range Cost example - Cost (as a result of Tables 4 & 5) to be collected from rates over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
Rates Cost(Inflated) |
329 |
338 |
346 |
710 |
1,946 |
3,247 |
3,972 |
10,888 |
|
Interest Cost |
- |
7 |
14 |
28 |
145 |
261 |
375 |
828 |
|
Debt Repayment |
- |
11 |
22 |
45 |
232 |
428 |
634 |
1,372 |
|
Total |
329 |
355 |
382 |
783 |
2,322 |
3,935 |
4,981 |
13,088 |
Table 9 - High Cost example - Cost (as a result of Tables 2 and 3) to be collected from rates over 2021-31 LTP
|
$000s |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
Total |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
Over LTP |
|
|
Rates Cost (Inflated) |
421 |
432 |
442 |
908 |
2,486 |
4,149 |
5,075 |
13,912 |
|
Interest Cost |
- |
12 |
24 |
48 |
255 |
459 |
660 |
1,457 |
|
Debt Repayment |
- |
19 |
39 |
79 |
408 |
753 |
1,116 |
2,414 |
|
Total |
421 |
463 |
505 |
1,036 |
3,149 |
5,361 |
6,851 |
17,784 |
94. The impact on rates is represented in Table 10 (midpoint estimate) and Table 11 (upper estimate) following, which shows the impact of the expenditure detailed above on Council’s planned total rate increases (general and targeted rates combined). The main impacts are in 2026-27 and 2028-29 where the renourishment budget is progressively introduced. The appropriate funding mechanism has not yet been determined, so these increases are indicative only as averages. The actual rating impact on particular ratepayers will vary significantly i.e. possible that ratepayers in CHB and Wairoa will not contribute.
Table 10 - Mid Range Cost example - Impact to (Total) Rates over 2021-31 LTP
|
Rate Impact
– Change |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
|
|
Current LTP increases |
10.0% |
10.7% |
9.8% |
7.2% |
5.8% |
4.9% |
4.9% |
|
Impact of Coastal Hazard Example |
0.8% |
0.0% |
-0.1% |
0.7% |
2.6% |
2.5% |
1.3% |
|
Current LTP + Coastal example |
10.9% |
10.7% |
9.7% |
8.0% |
8.5% |
7.4% |
6.2% |
Table 11 - High Cost example - Impact to (Total) Rates over 2021-31 LTP
|
Rate Impact – Change |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
|
|
Current LTP increases |
10.0% |
10.7% |
9.8% |
7.2% |
5.8% |
4.9% |
4.9% |
|
Impact of Coastal Hazard Example |
1.1% |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0.9% |
3.6% |
3.3% |
1.8% |
|
Current LTP + Coastal example |
11.1% |
10.7% |
9.8% |
8.2% |
9.5% |
8.3% |
6.8% |
95. The impact on Council’s debt levels and on the debt to revenue ratio is demonstrated below at Table 12 (midpoint estimate) and Table 13 (upper estimate).
96. The proposed borrowing does not adversely affect the Council’s peak of 158% in 2023-24 as the proposed borrowing occurs in later years where, based on the planned LTP expenditure, there is more capacity.
Table 12 - Mid range Cost example - Impact on Debt to Revenue Ratio
|
$000's |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
|
|
Additional Borrowing (net of repayments) |
274 |
545 |
1,100 |
5,791 |
10,423 |
14,990 |
16,919 |
|
Revised Debt to revenue Ratio |
151% |
143% |
132% |
130% |
121% |
116% |
110% |
|
LTP Debt to Revenue Ratio |
152% |
143% |
131% |
125% |
114% |
107% |
99% |
Table 13 - High Cost example - Impact on Debt to Revenue Ratio
|
$000's |
24-25 |
25-26 |
26-27 |
27-28 |
28-29 |
29-30 |
30-31 |
|
Year 4 |
Year 5 |
Year 6 |
Year 7 |
Year 8 |
Year 9 |
Year 10 |
|
|
Additional Borrowing (net of repayments) |
483 |
959 |
1,936 |
10,192 |
18,345 |
26,383 |
29,777 |
|
Revised Debt to revenue Ratio |
152% |
143% |
132% |
134% |
128% |
125% |
119% |
|
LTP Debt to Revenue Ratio |
152% |
143% |
131% |
125% |
114% |
107% |
99% |
Consider whether a beneficiary pays approach could be presented at a very high level using current information to provide indications of rate payer impacts at different public / public apportionments – need further advice from HBRC finance to determine validity of this approach given high number of assumptions and variables involved.
97. This work was considered by Council’s finance team to include too many variables and assumptions to be useful to undertake at this time, noting the two steps (outlined above) that need to be worked through by Councillors.
Out of Scope:
Assessment will not be undertaken on an individual ratepayer-basis at this time. Significant task with many variables to account for + HBRC Finance capacity constraints and timing issues mean that this cannot be completed as part of this review process. This work will be required as part of any Long Term Plan review / amendment process, and will be workshopped with Councillors at that time
Topic 7: The impacts of climate change on the adaptive pathways in light of the most recent projections
Provide a brief summary of outcomes of latest IPCC report and how latest projections compare with those used in Strategy and any implications
98. The full new IPCC Assessment Report 6 (‘AR6’) is still work in progress with promised deadlines set at September 2022. The “AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis” section of the report was published in August 2021, and provides updated future scenarios which are now called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (‘SSP’) instead of Representative Concentration pathways used in the previous Assessment Report 5 (‘AR5’) from 2013 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Comparison between older sea level rise used for the concept design (IPPC AR5 adapted for New Zealand in MFE guidelines for local government +2 mm/y subsidence, solid lines) and the new data (dashed lines). Similar colours indicate comparable old versus new scenarios. Dotted red line shows low confidence (representative of potential impact of deeply uncertain ice sheet processes) AR6 SSP5 p83
99. The information available at a regional scale is in at least 2 web platforms:
99.1. NASA sea level projection tool (https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool)
99.2. TAKIWA sea level rise (https://searise.takiwa.co/, Under development by NZ SeaRise, https://www.searise.nz/ )
100. These latest projections include much more detail than what was used for the short-term concept design (obtained from the MFE 2017, guidance for local government), as these were nationwide and not region or site specific. The new AR6 data considers the new SSP scenarios and local land vertical movement.
101. A comparison made using the data in the NASA tool for the data point available for Hawke’s Bay (Figure 2), shows that the sea level rise considered in the development of concept design is conservative with respect to the new data. This is because the concept design included a 2 mm/y subsidence rate, added to the MFE (2017) sea level rise data in contrast to the much lower rate considered in the new data from the NASA tool which is 0.56mm/y.
Figure 2: Location of point available for Hawke’s Bay in the NASA sea level projection tool.
102. Larger vertical land movements at a much higher spatial resolution, are indicated in the TAKIWA sea level rise tool where values north of Awatoto are larger than the 2 mm/y design consideration, reaching a maximum of 4.7mm/y in Westshore and Bayview (Figure 3). The impact of this increase over 20 years is 5.4 cm of additional sea level rise by 2040. While this is not large and will not compromise the effectiveness of the short-term design, this is a concern for the longer time horizon.
103. Changes in storm surge and wave climate have still not been assessed (or at least made public) at a regional scale for the new AR6 data.
Figure 3: Vertical land motion in Clifton to Tangoio from the TAKIWA Sea level rise tool.
104. The short-term design concepts developed for the Strategy to date consider a conservative sea level rise (0.24 m by year 2040) based on the RCP 8.5H+ data in MFE guidelines for local government (2017). This level was used for the following reasons:
104.1. Consideration for the likelihood that future science may indicate more pessimistic predictions.
104.2. Allowance for a longer lifetime if the sea level rise in the next 20 years is lower than this consideration. This provides a high degree of confidence that the designs will be effective for the duration of the short-term time horizon (until 2040) even if sea level rise is in the high range of the predictions.
104.3. The magnitude of the sea level rise is still relatively small for the short term, even for the more pessimistic scenario recommended for stress testing by the MFE (2017) guidance for local government. Allowing this sea level rise as conservative assumption did not significantly increase the cost of the short-term design.
104.4. Likelihood of the implementation of the strategy getting delayed and the short-term time horizon being postponed beyond 2040. The consideration will provide an allowance for this design to be still effective for a lifetime beyond 2040, in the most likely scenario that the sea level rise does not follow the considered carbon emissions scenario.
105. The recent AR6 data shows that the sea level rise predictions are similar with the design sea level being slightly more conservative. However, the newly included SSP5 8.5 p83 low confidence scenario indicates a higher increase (55 mm greater than the design level). This is not a huge value so it’s likely that the design will still be effective by 2040 if this scenario becomes the future reality. Nevertheless, the adaptation of the design may be required earlier in this case.
Clarify dynamic adaptive planning approach – designed to accommodate constantly changing knowledge and modelled future outcomes
106. Councils are required (by the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010) to plan for coastal hazards and the effects of sea level rise at least 100 years into the future.
107. A key challenge with this timeframe is the high degree of uncertainty; the further ahead we try to plan, the less certain things become, and there will be a continually evolving landscape of new knowledge and new information.
108. The dynamic adaptive planning approach adopted by the Strategy (from 2017 MfE guidance) is a direct response to these challenges.
109. In simplified terms, the following summarises a dynamic adaptive planning approach for sea level rise and coastal hazards:
109.1. Determine what you want to achieve (objectives)
109.2. Work out what hazard effects you want to avoid (adaptation thresholds)
109.3. Decide what the options are to respond to hazards risks
109.4. Compare, test, select preferred option(s)
109.5. Act based on what you know now
109.6. Remain flexible for what you don’t know
109.7. Monitor: Signals – triggers – thresholds
109.8. Revisit and adjust your options / response as conditions change (act before threshold reached).
110. The pathways developed by the Strategy have been established to allow flexibility into the future. The timing between actions being implemented (short / medium / long) and the actions themselves, will (and must) be adjusted overtime in response to real world conditions.
Summarise stress testing work undertaken by HBRC to date to test designs against different IPCC scenarios (note: this is qualitative only at this stage, further investment required to make it quantitative and benefit assessment required at TAG to determine future course).
111. The stress testing work undertaken to date contains the long-term adaptation strategy summarised in Table 14.
112. It also includes a simple quantitative analysis showing the potential change in the adaptation timeframes, which may be required under different greenhouse emissions scenarios including the RCP 8.5 H+ scenario recommended for this purpose in the MFE (2017) guidance for local government. It does not indicate the cost nor design details of the adaptation required in each case.
Table 14 Summary of long-term adaptation measures for the structures and measures considered in the concept design for coastal units with current short-term preferred pathway action.
|
Unit |
Short-term structure/ measure |
Long-term adaptation strategy |
|
Clifton |
Revetment |
Strengthen design (increase hight, rock size, and toe depth, decrease slope, add berm). Managed retreat is long-term preferred pathway and may be implemented when cost becomes prohibitive. |
|
Te Awanga -Haumoana |
Groynes |
Strengthen design (increase length, crest height, rock size, decrease slope batters, add berm, add intermediate groynes). For Haumoana, Managed retreat is long-term preferred pathway and may be implemented when cost becomes prohibitive. |
|
Nourishment |
Modify nourishment rates and location. For Haumoana, Managed retreat is long-term preferred pathway and may be implemented when cost becomes prohibitive |
|
|
Gravel barrier |
Increase crest height and width. Higher maintenance may be required. For Haumoana, Managed retreat is long-term preferred pathway and may be implemented when cost becomes prohibitive |
|
|
Westshore, Bay view, Whirinaki |
Nourishment |
Modify nourishment rates and location, include control structures as per mid-term preferred pathway. Managed retreat is still a possibility although has not been included as a preferred long-term pathway in this first cycle of the Coastal Strategy. |
Topic 8: An assessment of the carbon footprint arising from implementing the strategy
Present work already undertaken by HBRC to build in carbon offsetting to cost estimates
113. The carbon footprint for implementing the pathways as currently proposed has been considered in terms of costs to offset emissions.
114. The short-term (first action in proposed pathways) concept designs consider rough order costing for the operational and capital carbon emissions offsetting. These costs are included in the cost estimates outlined under Topic 6 above.
115. These costings are based on the price for New Zealand emission units (at the time of the design report) from the New Zealand Carbon Trading Emissions Scheme. The proportion of this cost with respect of the total project cost is very minor (around 0.16% of the construction cost for most alternatives and between 0.2% and 0.4% of the maintenance cost).
116. Since the design report was written in 2020, the price for New Zealand emission units has risen considerably, from the value of $25 used in the design report, to a spot price of $85 per unit in February 2022 (Figure 4)
Figure 4: Cost of carbon emissions NZ trading scheme (Commtrade, 2022).
117. While these prices will continue to fluctuate, for comparison purposes this would increase the total estimated carbon offsetting amount (across all short-term actions in the pathways) from $25,000 to $85,000 in capital cost and from $6,100/y to $20,740/y in operational costs.
Decision Making Process
118. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision-making provisions do not apply.
That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and notes the “HBRC Internal Review – Coastal Hazards Strategy Implementation” staff report.
Authored by:
|
Simon Bendall Coastal
Hazards Strategy |
Jessica Ellerm Group Manager Corporate Services |
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley Group Manager Asset Management |
|
|
1⇩ |
Summary Table: Regulatory Workstream reports by Mitchell Daysh Limited, 2020 |
|
|
|
2⇩ |
Snapshot of key Tāngata Whenua interests and entities in the Strategy area |
|
|
