Agenda of Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
May 11	10	Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme Review	MA	Aug 11	Paper at today’s meeting.

REASON FOR REPORT

1. In his report on the mitigation of coastal erosion affecting Haumoana, Mr Dave Serjeant:

1.1. Identified a number of crucial investigations which are needed to confirm the design for hard engineering protection proposed by WoW, and to gain a better understanding of the down drift effects of the proposal.

1.2. Suggests that if a consent application were to proceed it would have a considerably improved chance of success if a local authority were to be the applicant.

1.3. Suggests that if a consent application was to proceed it would be most efficiently and effectively considered by way of direct referral to the Environment Court.

2. Hastings District Council staff are preparing a report for consideration by their Council as to whether or not they wish to progress the proposed mitigation works as consent applicant.

3. To enable HDC staff to report fully on the issue to their Council, this report seeks

3.1. A decision from Council as to whether they wish to contribute to additional input by experts on this issue.

3.2. An indication from Council for the granting of a future request for direct referral to the Environment Court from Hastings District Council (HDC) in relation to resource consent applications for coastal protection works at Haumoana.

Background

4. In his report Mr Serjeant identified that if the project was to be proceeded with there are a number of crucial investigations which are needed to confirm the design and to gain a better understanding of the down-drift effects of the proposal. The completion of this work will enable a more accurate estimate of the cost of the hard engineering proposal. Cost estimates completed as part of the background work to Mr Serjeant’s report identified that in discounted dollar terms, the estimated cost of the project based on the proposal put forward by WoW, was $7.7M compared with the estimated benefits of the project ranging from $8.4M to $12.8M

5. On 11 July 2011 Council staff received from HDC staff a request that HBRC continue to work collaboratively with HDC on the issue, and jointly fund the further work identified by Mr Serjeant.

6. The further work includes further Unibest modelling work and sensitivity analysis which needs to be completed to determine the possible down drift effects from the proposed groyne field, and options for how those effects might be mitigated, thus reducing project cost uncertainties and enabling Mr Serjeant to review his position on the likely success of a resource consent for the proposed works.

7. Staff have requested and received a proposal for the additional work requested. This proposal together with associated peer review work, and further work to be completed by Mr Serjeant is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.00.

8. To date, HBRC and HDC have jointly shared costs in this project. Costs total $97,166.00 As this project has spanned 2 financial years, staff have met the costs to date from existing budgets.

9. Staff advise that the additional work, if completed within the 2011/12 financial year will not be able to be completed within the budget provision as other investigation work has already been committed. Staff advise that given existing commitments, this additional work would result in the coastal project budget being exceeded by approximately $40,000.00.

10. In addition, HDC have requested an indication from HBRC on the direct referral of any future resource consent applications to the Environment Court for a coastal protection scheme at Haumoana.

11. HDC request this indication to allow time, cost and resource planning to be undertaken for the project and to inform the preparation of a Statement of Proposal under the LGA and HDC’s next LTP for the 2012/22 period.

12. Staff consider that a HBRC indication of likelihood of direct referral is appropriate to inform HDC’s LTP consultative process but as no actual consent applications have been formally lodged, the indication can be made “without prejudice” and is not legally binding as it is only once applications have been lodged that sections 87D and 87E of the RMA apply.

Description of Proposed Scheme

13. The following is a summary of the main aspects of the possible Haumoana coastal protection works.

14. Seven groynes of varying lengths and two strongpoints located at varying distances along a 2 km length of coast from 200 m south of East Road to 300 m south of the Tukituki River groyne.

15. The groynes to trap sand and gravels drifting along the shore to the north to increase the width of barrier beach updrift of each groyne, Some of this material may also be imported to speed up the infilling of the groyne cells.

16. Crenulate bay theory was used to predict the potential equilibrium shoreline shape between each pair of groynes, and hence to also determine the location and length of each groyne.

17. Groynes are to be constructed from large concrete cubes placed on top of randomly placed smaller cubes. The head of each groyne is proposed to be armoured with propriety units known as Xblocs. Strongpoints are a line of concrete cubes without an armoured head.

18. The length of each groyne is denoted by the width of shoreline growth required, determined at the position of MHWS. Each groyne to extend 8 m landward of the original MHWS position, and 26.5 m seaward the proposed new MHWS position, hence total length of each groyne is 34.5 m longer than the denoted length in the MCCl reports. Groyne lengths (e.g. designed beach growth) range from 30 m to 5 m. Strongpoints are proposed to project 20 m seaward of the original MHWS.

19. The final shape of the fillet between each groyne, and hence the rate of sediment bypassing each groyne, has been predicted from the shoreline rotation up-drift of the existing groynes at Tukituki and East Clive.

20. The groyne field is to be constructed in three stages:

21. A major 30 m groyne located at East Road, and two 10 m groynes and a strong point located over a 350 m length down-drift (north) to mitigate the erosion effects of the major groyne.

22. A 25 m and 10 m groyne located up to 200 m up-drift (south) of the above major groyne to further increase beach widths along the 21 properties on Clifton Road.

23. The final 4 groynes of lengths between 15 m and 20 m and a strongpoint located up to 1450 m down-drift (north) of stage 1 to stabilise the coast to the Tukituki groyne.

Likelihood of Appeal

24. If HDC were to become applicant they consider that a high likelihood exists of an appeal to the Environmental Court if a conventional HBRC hearing was conducted. HDC further consider that this high likelihood of appeal exists whether the applications are granted or declined.

25. Given this analysis a direct referral process is available to allow more timely, cost effective and efficient decision making for contentious applications.

Evaluation Criteria

26. As the RMA does not provide any guidance for consent authorities considering direct referral applications the combined Regional Council Consent Managers Group produced a set of criteria.

27. It is staff’s opinion that if and when an application is lodged for the coastal protection works described in paragraph 5.15 of this report it would meet all of the attached criteria.

28. Hence staff recommend Council indicate on a ‘without prejudice’ basis that any future Haumoana coastal protection applications be directly referred to the Environment Court.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

29. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

29.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

29.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

29.4. People affected by this decision, may be the Haumoana community who will have had the opportunity to contribute through annual plan submissions, and should HDC agree to proceed with the issue, through a special consultative process, proposed by that Council.

29.5. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

29.6. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to 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 to be made.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2011

SUBJECT: Issues arising from April Storm

REASON FOR REPORT

1. The April 2011 storm caused severe damage to a number of small communities on the coastal areas of the region. During and after the event staff dealt with a number of flood related issues and assisted where appropriate.

2. Council staff worked closely with territorial local authority staff particularly in the Waimarama, Kairakau, Kopuawhara and Whakaki areas to assist with repair works.

3. One matter that was consistently raised by members of the community that were affected by the flooding, and Hastings District Council, was the expectation that the Council would automatically repair any flood damage associated with water courses and put things right. This highlights a general misunderstanding of Council’s role in flood protection and flood schemes that Council manages, compared to its regulatory role with all the region’s waterways.

4. This report provides an outline of some of the issues staff dealt with and outlines the significant items of flood repair works and future options for mitigation that are being discussed with various communities.

FLOOD AFFECTED AREAS

5. WAIMARAMA

5.1. Pouhokio Stream at mouth (Tiakitai Road)

Flooding caused the stream at the mouth to swing around to the north cutting in close to the bank in front of the properties on the left bank. The left bank along the river edge is protected with limestone rock for approximately 80m which continues around the sea bank for approximately 70m.

The concern was with undermining of the rock bank protection alongside the river and where it wraps around and terminates along the beach front. A number of rocks from the wall moved out of place and a section of the wall required rebuilding.

This site is located adjacent to a coastal monitoring cross section WM15. This location is currently an erosion trending section of coastline although there are quite large seasonal differences.

The assets at risk are the coastal dunes, road access, the seawall and private property. Although HBRC has a primary interest in the coastal dunes the other assets are the responsibility of HDC and private landowners.

HBRC’s provided emergency assistance to avoid further flood related damage to the assets.

The cost to carry out this repair was $5,000. Funds were sourced from project 278, Central and Southern Rivers and Stream Scheme.

5.2.
Pouhokio Stream (Gillies Crescent)

This was badly affected by flooding and bank erosion that placed several dwellings at risk and received considerable media attention at the time. Staff held a meeting with residents on 9th May 2011. Many residents in the area were severely affected, a number needing to evacuate.

Some work was immediately arranged to deal with concern related to clearance of large debris and trees from the area upstream of the Waimarama Road Bridge to above the Gillies Crescent area. The flood eroded significant areas of the banks especially on the outside of bends and vastly changed the entire channel through enlargement and straightening during the event.

Preliminary estimates (yet to be verified) are that the flow was about 300 cumecs at its peak in the channel with another 50 cumecs flowing out of the channel above the bridge, which is well over a 100 year flood event.

Photo showing Gillies Crescent and extent of clearing work

Approx 350m of stream required immediate action. The work involved clearing the waterway of fallen trees and leaning trees or tree branches obstructing the flow. Any live willows performing a useful bank protection role were left.

Removed trees have been stockpiled ready for burning when dry.

A longer term solution for stream management will be investigated at a future date.

At a subsequent meeting with the community representatives of the three worst affected houses in Gillies Cres. A request was made to consider some rock protection works along the toe of the left bank to get through the winter storms. A site visit to determine the extent of the works was carried out on 24 May. Residents have advised that they are prepared to pay some of the cost of carrying out the extra work.

The rock work has not been carried out at this stage due to the cost. However a more significant realignment of the left bank was carried out to relieve the pressure on the outside of the bend. This was able to be carried out due to the generous permission from the landowner on the left bank to allow it to occur on his land.

The cost to carry out this repair was $15,000. Funds were sourced from project 278, Central and Southern Rivers and Stream Scheme.

5.3. Pouhokio Stream (Below Waimarama Bridge)

During the peak of the flooding the Pouhokio Stream just below the Waimarama Bridge broke through a piece of land and by-passed the old meander. This caused significant damage to farmland and left the stream with steep near vertical banks. These are very unstable and will require action in the future to prevent further damage to property and excessive siltation of the stream.

In order to stabilize the bank and help prevent too much more erosion, bank protection work was carried out over some of the worst areas.

The cost to carry out this repair was $7,000. Funds were sourced from project 278, Central and Southern Rivers and Stream Scheme.

Staff believe that the very significant change to the Pouhokio Stream channel over most of its length in the flood plain is something that needs to be considered carefully. On this matter, a joint meeting with HDC and the community was held on 13 July in the Fire Station to discuss this (and many other issues). A working group including staff and community representatives has been formed to look at the possibility of forming a flood protection or river scheme. This work is proceeding.

5.4. Pouhokio Stream (Above township, floodplains)

A meeting was held with the lessee of land (believed to be Waimarama 3A6B6B) to look at the flooding and discuss flooding issues in the valley. A significant amount of silt has come down the valley together with tree debris including sawn logs from production forestry operations. There are concerns with stream alignment; bank protection and ongoing maintenance of the stream (e.g. willow management).

There are significant flood related issues in this part of the valley. Flood prevention is unlikely to be practicable or affordable. However willow maintenance and keeping the waterway free of obstacles will assist. There was some discussion at this meeting and at the community meeting about the sawn logs from a logging operation that were caught up in the floodwaters and deposited throughout the valley and along the beach.

No work was carried out by HBRC in this area but it will be considered as part of any scheme proposal.

5.5. Waingongoro Stream

Floodwater from the Waingongoro Stream escaped on the right bank downstream of the Waimarama Road Bridge. Buildings and land were flooded.

The main issue is erosion of the right bank and concern that it will get worse. Other issues concerned the control of the overland flow path of the flood flows once they get out of the river and that a safe escape route is possible from properties in the vicinity of the Stream. The school is the only safe haven from this property.

Photos show bank erosion and area where floodwater escaped from the stream

The landowner had a number of concerns that can best be addressed by an investigation and model of the flows and flow paths at a future date.

The immediate item of concern is protection of the bank in the vicinity of a dwelling. It is noted that the existing willows have done a good job in holding the bank together, but they have become out flanked with floodwater.

Repair work could involve rockwork or large trees (live willow) placed behind and backfilled. Pole planting with future maintenance should also be part of the works.

Council has been working with HDC and the local marae and community on a proposal to install a weir to divert part of the stream past the marae. Construction of this is planned in the near future. It is proposed that the work to protect this dwelling be done as part of this work.

5.6. Waitatahuata Stream (Waimarama)

The Waitatahuata Stream drains a short steep catchment in the coastal hills to the west of the Waimarama settlement. It flows in a narrow channel and forms the property boundary for the Waimarama 3A1C2 Incorporation.

During the storm event the stream left the channel and flowed towards the house and shed carrying with it a large amount of rocks and other debris.

Photo shows flood damage and location of stream after the event.

Plan showing stream course prior to the flood event

Old course is on the far right of the photo.

Channel work was carried out to reinstate the channel into its old course.

The cost to carry out this repair was $3,500. Funds were sourced from project 278, Central and Southern Rivers and Stream Scheme.

6. Waimarama Other Work

6.1. Te Apiti Road: Poplar trees removed from the Pouhokio Stream (immediately after the storm event). Cost $3,000.

6.2. Waingongoro Stream: Downstream of Tiakitai Road the floodplain is low lying. Debris carried by the flood has resulted in the stream bed silting up and causing localized flooding. In addition willow growth obstructs the channel. Some work has been done to date and further work is required when the land dries out. Cost to date $6,000 with $3,500 required to complete.

6.3. Work on the Pouhokio Stream has been carried out on behalf of HDC and paid for by them ($10,000).

6.4. Discussions on flooding issues have been held with landowners adjacent to Waitangi Road. Much of this area including the road is in private ownership and therefore HBRC are unable to assist in any significant way. Flood debris has been removed from the stream, cost - $500.

OCEAN BEACH

7. Waipuka Stream, Ocean Beach - Access Bridge: Waipuka Incorporation

7.1. HBRC was contacted by the trustees of Waipuka Incorporation to discuss concerns related to the access bridge over the Waipuka Stream at Ocean Beach. The bank supporting the right abutment has eroded leaving the abutment unstable.

7.2. In addition about 80m of the right bank has suffered bank erosion leaving some buildings close to the edge. The ford at the river mouth has been washed out.

7.3. At this stage the bridge and properties are insured and HBRC has no direct involvement or responsibility but had advised that it is able to assist on a cost recoverable basis if the owners desire. Staff have prepared and priced three options that can be used to repair and secure the stream bank and bridge. Prices vary from $33,000 to $98,000 depending on the extent of the work.

7.4. HDC are looking at re-establishing the ford at the mouth of the river and the access road to it.

WHIRINAKI CULVERT

8. Just north of Napier, past the PanPac pulp mill on SH2 a culvert drains the land on the west side of the highway, under the highway and under the houses and the beach access road to a sea outfall. During the storm event it blocked and the land to the west of the highway was flooded for some time preventing access to the lifestyle blocks in the area. HBRC excavated the pipeline, and broke into the pipe to clear the blockage and relieve the flooding.

9. This culvert raised an issue that has occurred on occasions in the past at other locations. There is no record of this asset with HDC, HBRC or LTNZ. Three agencies met to discuss the issue but failed to agree responsibility. However it has been agreed that payment for this repair would be shared equally. Panpac kindly agreed to help out with a quarter share of the cost. The total cost to repair the culvert was $6969 of which HBRC contributed $1742.

10. This culvert is old and not in good condition. There are issues with keeping the outlet open to allow discharge to the sea. It is likely that in the past, prior to the lifestyle block development, flooding did not matter and it eventually drained away. This does not seem to be acceptable today. Until the April storm HBRC had no involvement with the maintenance as it is not an asset that we maintain.

11. HBRC have agreed to look at including the culvert in the Whirinaki Scheme. This will involve assessing expectations of the beneficiaries and their willingness to pay. The culvert is not in very good condition; there has been some ad-hoc extensions to it and the sea outlet becomes blocked which may require regular openings. Any future replacement under the State Highway, dwellings and an access road out to the sea will be an expensive and difficult exercise. Staff are not confident that a satisfactory solution will be found that matches beneficiary expectations with their willingness to pay.

Photo shows the Whirinaki culvert, section broken open to free the blockage

KOPUAWHARA

12. The April storm event caused significant flooding and associated damage similar to that that occurred in August 2002. The scheme works suffered damage to the stopbanks as well as bank damage to the Kopuawhara Stream. A large culvert floodgate required temporary repair and a more permanent solution is required. Silt covered large areas of farmland and a most devastating issue was the amount of trees and tree debris that knocked over fences and littered the paddocks. Some of this (as in past events) was identified as forestry debris resulting in criticism of the forestry industry.

13. Discussion has been had with members of the forest industry about the effects of their industry on downstream properties and the need to engage with landowners more effectively. This work is ongoing.

Photo shows flood debris deposited on top of the stopbank at Kopuawhara.

14. Staff have developed repair options and prioritised the works. The total cost of the works proposed is $120,000. Part of this work is an extension of the original scheme to control the amount of debris that is deposited on the floodplains and requires consideration by the scheme ratepayers. A meeting was held on 10 August to discuss the issues and determine the next steps. The general feeling of the meeting was to proceed with getting the work done this summer, subject to agreement on funding.

15. Based on the breakdown of repair costs and priorities staff have identified $90,000 as directly relating to flood damage to the scheme. It is proposed that this sum be obtained from the Wairoa Wide Flood Reserve (Note: some further comment on the flood reserve is in the Whakaki item of this paper). The remaining funds can be sourced by a loan, deferred maintenance and staging of some of the work. It was agreed at the scheme ratepayer meeting that staff would seek approval for flood reserve funds and come back to the ratepayers with a couple of options to consider regarding how the rest of the funds could be managed.

16. Staff seek agreement from Council to contribute $90,000 to the flood mitigation works at Kopuawhara with that funding being sourced from the Wairoa Wide Flood Reserve Fund.

KAIRAKAU

17. The April storm resulted in the flooding of a small stream that flows to the west of the settlement and a loss of the left bank of the river including an ablution block and boat launching ramp. HBRC staff have met with community representatives to discuss issues.

18. The small stream to the west of the settlement is not part of any scheme administered by HBRC. However, maintenance the stream and other minor works could form part of a scheme and the area rated to enable a regular works to be carried out. Staff are preparing a proposal to take back to residents.

19. The reinstatement of the river bank is a significant item. A proposal was developed by local consultants for a reinstatement option that was designed to reduced the risk to the area and regain the lost river edge. The cost to construct the proposal was not within the means of the community who have arrived at an alternative option that they believe is affordable but is a higher risk option. This is based on the use of driven piles, similar to the method that protected the riverbank previously.

20. To assist, HBRC staff are providing supervision for the project and will advise on future edge protection options upstream of the current work extent.

WHAKAKI

21. The Community of Whakaki was impacted by the April storm event. The Whakaki Marae and a number of houses were flooded. Staff have met with the community at the Whakaki Marae together with representatives from Wairoa District Council and New Zealand Land Transport Association. The community have advised that they would like to improve the level of flood protection to the Marae and a number of houses within the community. Houses in the area are built on a flood plain which through successive floods over the last several decades has risen as a result of ongoing siltation. A number of houses are now extremely susceptible to flooding.

22. Staff have investigated a range of options for the community and drainage channels across the Whakaki flood plain are managed and cleaned on a regular basis under the Wairoa Rivers & Streams Scheme.

23. Staff concluded that improvements to the stopbank protecting the Marae from the Waikutuku Stream will result in improved protection to the Marae and approximately six houses. The protection of individual houses on other parts of the flood plain is however difficult to achieve. Staff therefore proposed that raising the houses is the most cost effective approach of providing a reduced risk of flooding to those properties. The estimated cost of all of these works is approximately $120,000.

24. In December 2000 Council established a Wairoa district wide reserve to fund flood mitigation and recovery work within the Wairoa district. This reserve was made up of a $500,000 Council contribution and a $144,000 of surplus funds arising from a special dividend from Port of Napier which was distributed back to the community. The Wairoa Flood Reserve has been managed such that the capital purchasing power is maintained with the balance of interest to be credited to the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme. In 2008 Council approved a withdrawal from the Wairoa District Wide Reserve of up to $200,000 for erosion protection works on this section of the right bank of the Wairoa River immediately upstream from the mouth. Accordingly as at 30 June 2011 the Scheme holds $640,000.

25. Staff seek agreement from Council to contribute to the flood mitigation works at Whakaki with that funding being sourced from the Wairoa District Wide Flood Reserve Fund. Further meetings with the community have been arranged during August. At those meetings it is expected that the community will confirm their agreement to the proposed work and seek assistance from organisations including HBRC undertake the work and contribute to the costs.

DECISION MAKING

26. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

26.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

26.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

26.4. The beneficiaries of the work undertaken and being investigated by Council are affected by these decisions as are the wider ratepayers of Hawke’s Bay.

26.5. Much of the report is for Councillor information. Council can either agree or decline to contribute to the cost of flood mitigation work at Whakaki.

27. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

28. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend Council:

1.1 Agree that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 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 due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

1.2 Note and endorse the flood response work already authorised by staff.

1.3 Note that further community consultation may result in staff developing proposals for further flood schemes particularly serving Waimarama, Kairakau and Whirinaki communities.

1.4 Authorise staff to work with the Whakaki community and other agencies to mitigate the risk of flooding to properties in that community, including making a contribution of up to 50% of the cost of the mitigation work or $60,000, whichever is the greater; with that funding sourced from the Wairoa District wide Flood Reserve held by Council.

1.5 Agree to a contribution of $90,000 from the Wairoa District Wide Flood Reserve Fund towards flood reinstatement work on the Kopuawhara Scheme.

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2011

SUBJECT: Regional Pest Management Strategy Review update

REASON FOR REPORT:

1. In November 2010 the proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) review process was agreed by Council. It was noted then that the Biosecurity Act 1993 was being amended and that changes may be required to the RPMS (or the review process) as a result of those changes to the Biosecurity Act.

2. The initial phases of the RPMS review process began in April 2011 with the release for public submission of the RPMS discussion document.

3. This report updates Council on the timeline to complete the Biosecurity Act 1993 amendment bill and supporting National Policy Direction (NPD) and discusses the impact of changes on the RPMS review process.

Background

4. The initial timelines suggested by senior MAF staff was that by mid to late 2011 there would be sufficient clarity on the changes to the Biosecurity Act Amendment bill (the Act) to guide councils in the process of reviewing their Regional Pest Management Strategies.

5. It is now clear that the legislation will not be passed before the national election and is therefore unlikely to be passed before June 2012 at the earliest.

6. The passing of the bill amending the Biosecurity Act and the formation of supporting national policy direction is likely to have significant impact on how Council delivers its Biosecurity role. The changes are likely to include a wider regional Biosecurity integration and leadership role and a greater role in marine Biosecurity. The Act and NPD will also enable key changes such as binding the Crown to regional pest strategies.

7. This wider leadership and regional integration role is already being requested by some industry stakeholders within the region. An initiative is currently being developed at the request of the pipfruit and grape grower sectors to better manage the potential regional Biosecurity risks they are exposed to. This initiative is likely to see a regional Biosecurity sector group formed to better integrate central government, industry and regional Biosecurity activities to achieve more coordinated regional Biosecurity. The amended Act and NPD are likely to be important in facilitating these sorts of industry or sector requests.

8. Councils current RPMS expires in December 2011.

9. Collectively regional councils have sought legal advice on the impacts of the legislative time delays to RPMS review processes. Advice received is that councils are required to review RPMSs and issue a revised proposed Strategy prior to the expiry date for public consultation. However there is no requirement to make changes to a Strategy as part of that review.

10. It is very likely that there will be a mandatory two year timeframe to begin an RPMS review once the BSA amendment bill and NPD are completed.

11. Council essentially has three options.

11.1. To continue with a full regional pest management strategy review now and then review the strategy again within two years. This option will require significant staff time. In addition most of the changes to Council’s strategy currently being considered will be unable to be made without the Biosecurity Act amendment bill being passed. Staff do not recommend this option.

11.2. To continue the current strategy review and propose a substantially unchanged strategy with an accompanying publicity campaign explaining reasons why this is being done. The proposing of the strategy means that the existing strategy remains in force until the review is completed. Completion of the review could then be delayed until the legislation and NPD has been completed. However a review begun under the BSA 1993 is completed under the BSA 1993. Staff do not recommend this option as it is not as procedurally clear as option 11.3 and therefore has a greater level of risk associated with the transition of RPMS’s to the new legislation and NPD.

11.3. To continue the current strategy review but propose a substantially unchanged strategy with an accompanying publicity campaign explaining reasons why this is being done. The proposed strategy is then adopted by Council following an appropriate public consultation period and consideration of submissions. An in depth review of the Strategy will be completed once the Biosecurity Amendment Act is in force and its supporting National Policy Direction has been published.

12. Staff believe option 11.3 is the best option. Council’s biosecurity priorities and funding will need to be reviewed after the Biosecurity Amendment Act is in force and its supporting National Policy Direction has been published. This option will minimise the staff time required to complete the statutory process and enable an in depth review to be done including the most up to date information and central government policy.

13. A revised proposed Strategy will be prepared for consideration by the Committee at its November meeting. Staff will also present a timetable for public consultation and publicity material for consideration at that meeting.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

14. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

14.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

14.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

14.4. No person will be affected by this decision.

14.5. The options available to Council are set out in the report.

15. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

16. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend Council:

1.1. Agree that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 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 due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

16.1. Agree to continue the current Regional Pest Management Strategy review but propose a substantially unchanged strategy with an accompanying publicity campaign explaining reasons why this is being done.

16.2. Note that this review will include an appropriate public consultation and submission period in accordance with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act.

16.3. Agree that an in depth review of the Strategy will be completed once the proposed Biosecurity Amendment Act is in force and its supporting National Policy Direction has been published.

Campbell Leckie

Biosecurity Manager

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee

Wednesday 17 August 2011

SUBJECT: Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme - Rivers: Review of Levels of Service

REASON FOR REPORT

1. Council manages and administers the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme to maintain an effective flood control network that provides protection from frequent river flooding to communities and productive land on the Heretaunga Plains. Flood protection is provided through river control works, stop banking, and a network of drainage waterways and pumping stations.

2. Council has committed, through the 2009-2019 LTP, to review the current levels of service provided by the Heretaunga Plains Scheme, to determine whether they are still appropriate or should be increased.

3. Hydrodynamic modelling, taking into consideration the Ministry for Environment (MfE) predictions for climate change, has indicated that improvements to the current flood protection regime will be necessary to provide Plains communities with a similar level of protection from future weather events to that which they currently enjoy.

4. An initial investigation into the extent of physical works required to provide adequate flood protection for future needs, and the associated costs and benefits of such works, has been undertaken.

5. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the hydrodynamic modelling exercise; to identify, at a high level, the options available for increasing the level of service; and to discuss the likely costs and benefits associated with potential improvement works. This report will be supported by a presentation by Craig Goodier, HBRC Senior Design Engineer, and Sean Bevin, Economic Solutions Limited.

BACKGROUND

6. Council’s Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee approved a project brief to guide the level of service review at their meeting in May 2010. The project restricts consideration to the major rivers and their associated flood control works; it was agreed that drainage would be considered separately due to the differing nature of issues associated with the HPFCS drainage network.

7. A regulatory planning assessment was completed by Gavin Ide, HBRC Team Leader Policy, in December 2010. The assessment supported two investigation outcomes:

· A review of current and proposed planning provisions with respect to the level of protection provided to flood control assets in the Scheme, and any changes in land use intensification/use that they promote; and,

· Identification of opportunities to restrict development in strategic areas adjoining flood protection assets in order to manage for super design flood events; and, where suitable areas of land for protection are identified, the processes available to ensure that these areas are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

8. An economic analysis was carried out by Sean Bevin of Economic Solutions Ltd in Napier, in August 2010. The economic analysis considered:

· The current profile and level of demographic, economic and investment activity in the Heretaunga Plains area protected by the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme;

· The main economic changes that have occurred in the area over the past 20 years;

· The main economic trends and changes forecast for the area over the longer-term;

· The local and regional economic impacts of a significant failure(s) of the present flood control scheme;

· The implications of the above analysis for the future level of flood protection provided by the Scheme; and,

· The appropriateness of the current benefit allocation approach used by HBRC for funding the costs of operating and maintaining the Scheme.

The study concluded that:

· There has been a significant increase since 1991, in the demographic base of the HPFCS catchment, with the total population increasing by 12% and household numbers by 20%;

· Over the past decade, the catchment economy has grown by approximately one-third, accompanied by a significant degree of production diversification and change;

· The HPFCS catchment is the ‘engine room’ of the Hawke’s Bay economy, comprising the majority part of the Hawke’s Bay primary production/processing and related servicing base. The Heretaunga Plains is an important contributor to the national fruit and horticultural sector;

· The area of the total HPFCS catchment that would be directly impacted by a major flood event is a key and growing part of the total catchment economy;

· Further significant demographic, economic, rural production and other industry growth is forecast for the catchment area over the longer-term. Demographic growth is also forecast to be higher in the directly floodable part of the catchment;

· Major flooding within the HPFCS catchment has the potential to result in a very significant economic impact loss for the local and regional economies; and,

· The current public/private benefit allocation ‘formula’ used for funding the operation of the HPFCS remains appropriate and generally consistent with other regional council practice in New Zealand. It should, therefore, be maintained.

9. Hydrodynamic modelling has been used to determine the current Scheme capacity and to determine the amount of stopbank raising required to provide adequate capacity for future scenarios including climate change factors up to the year 2090, in accordance with MfE guidelines. The modelling exercise considered three scenarios:

9.1. Maintaining the current 100 year design standard, but increasing the minimum freeboard (i.e. distance from design flood level to the top of the stopbank) to 1.0 metre in order to accommodate berm siltation and changed channel roughness brought about by increased berm planting (e.g. natives) and other design and modelling uncertainties. The current minimum freeboard varies from about 0.3m to 1m. This variation arises from changes in the channel geometry, roughness and structures such as bridges encroaching on the waterway. The proposed minimum freeboard provides a degree of robustness to the Scheme and reduces the risk of unforeseen circumstances resulting in premature overtopping or failure;

9.2. Increasing the level of protection from a 100 year to 250 year design standard, including provision for climate change; and,

9.3. Increasing the level of protection from a 100 year to 500 year design standard, including provision for climate change.

10. Raising stopbank heights will provide extra discharge capacity; however the increased discharge will in turn result in increased velocities and scour that will need to be allowed for. More work is necessary at the design phase to determine the nature and extent of this protection. It is likely that at critical locations, such as the outside of bends or narrow berms, groyne structures (as used for the recent sawfly work) will be the most effective means to protect the channel and ultimately the stopbanks.

11. A varying degree of physical works will be required in each scenario to achieve the respective levels of protection. Preliminary cost estimates suggest that improvement options could range from $3 million (for minor works to achieve the 100 year design standard, including some strengthening in vulnerable areas) to approximately $15 million (for a substantial increase in stopbank height required to achieve the 500 year design standard, as well as works to strengthen bends and other vulnerable areas). Costs will be further refined before the next LTP planning round.

12. The HPFCS works (both capital and operations/maintenance) are currently funded:

· 70% from targeted rates levied on capital value of properties benefiting directly and indirectly from the Scheme; and,

· 30% from Council’s general funding sources.

13. In 2005, Council responded to a significant loss in the level of service provided by the Scheme as a result of widespread death of willow edge protection planting caused by Willow Sawfly. The project to restore the design level of service was completed over three years at a cost of $9 million. The Scheme contribution (70%) to this work was funded through:

· Increased targeted rating – two 10% increases over a two year period; and

· Borrowing, increasing to a total of $6.7 million.

14. Loans were secured with a ten year repayment period. The Scheme is repaying the loan principal at $670,000 per year until 2015/16, reducing to $420,000 in 2016/17 and $140,000 the following year; with repayment of the entire loan by 2018. Interest is paid by the Scheme on the outstanding loan amount.

15. In terms of funding the Scheme in future (once current loans are repaid), three options are available:

15.1. Increase the current rates to fund the capital improvement works;

15.2. Maintain the current rates regime, increasing at the current rate of inflation, and embark on a capital works programme to improve flood protection;

15.3. Reduce rates once the current loans are repaid. In this scenario, the current maintenance regime would continue and a small amount of capital works would be provided for (as per paragraph 9.1), but no major works could be carried out.

16. The option chosen will depend on the feedback from the community through consultation. Options proposed will include loan funding the work or meeting the cost as funds become available through rates. It should be noted that there will also be a significant contribution from general funds. The chosen option will need to take both funding sources into account.

17. If the decision is to proceed with updating the levels of service, design work needs to be carried out well in advance of the capital works. This work can be managed within the current funding structure and will be progressed over the next 2-3 years.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

18. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

18.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

18.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

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

18.4. No person will be affected by this decision.

18.5. The options are included in the report for Council consideration.

18.6. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

19. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be effected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee recommend Council:

1.2. Note that any funding to meet the cost of any significant capital works programme will not become available until loans taken out for Sawfly remediation work are paid off during the years 2015/16 to 2017/18;

1.3. Instruct staff to continue to develop and refine options for improving the level of service for the Heretaunga Plains Rivers, including public consultation, over the next two years; with the preferred option, including cost implications, being included in Council’s Draft LTP 2015-25 for public comment/submission.

Larissa Coubrough

Asset Engineer

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.