Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Chilean Needle Grass - "Taskforce" Update

Reason for Report

1. The proposed Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) is subject to an Environment Court appeal. Mediation regarding this appeal was held on 12 September 2012. At that mediation the party appealing the RPMS put his case that Chilean Needle Grass (CNG) control was expensive for ratepayers and those with CNG on their property should receive additional support from Council. He proposed making CNG a Total Control service delivery plant pest.

2. While staff do not believe CNG should be a service delivery plant pest, there was agreement that the use of a much more effective, newly available chemical herbicide “Taskforce” was significantly more expensive than previous control tools. Staff agreed to consider the costs and benefits of additional support to land owners with CNG.

3. This paper discusses the additional support and seeks Council agreement to meeting 100% of the cost of the chemical “Taskforce” used by land users for CNG control. Land owners would still be required to meet 50% of the cost of application of the chemical through the plant pest incentive scheme.

Background

4. Chilean needle grass (CNG) is an invasive agricultural plant pest with adverse economic and animal welfare impacts. It is well suited to the dryer Hawke’s Bay climate. Chilean needle grass is extremely difficult to control because:

4.1 It can only be easily identified in Nov/Dec when it throws up its aerial panicle seed, for the rest of the year it looks like any other grass

4.2 It seeds twice a year, once aerially and once at the base of the plant

4.3 Its seeds have a long life in the soil.

5. There are currently 106 properties in Hawke’s Bay with CNG including 42 properties which are heavily infested. CNG is listed as an occupier responsibility total control pest in the Regional Pest Management Strategy. This means that landowners are responsible for the control of the pest, but can claim a 50% subsidy for the work through Council’s plant pest incentive scheme. Given the difficulty in undertaking control and the widespread nature of CNG it would cost Council between $60-80k per annum if CNG were to be declared a Total Control service delivery plant. Staff do not believe this is a cost effective option for control.

6. To date control of CNG has been undertaken with “Round up”. At best CNG has been contained through this approach. Using Round up there is no realistic long term ability to significantly reduce infestations within this region.

7. Over the last five years HBRC has been involved (in conjunction with Marlborough District Council and Canterbury Regional Council) in seeking approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines unit (ACVM) to import and use a chemical “Taskforce”. Taskforce has been used in Australia for the control of CNG and Nasella tussock for many years. Direct cash funding and significant staff time has been invested on ground trials, assessment applications, submissions, meetings with relevant central government agencies and land user training.

8. “Taskforce” is now available in New Zealand and with it the ability for more effective CNG control. Longer term, Taskforce actually provides the potential to reduce the amount of CNG within the region. While it is more effective as a control tool because it has a residual effect for up to three years, Taskforce does have some disadvantages to Roundup. It is substantially more expensive than RoundUp to apply (around $140/ha compared to $30), and it has a stock withholding period for land users of 120 days. This can be a real deterrent to its use. The use of both Roundup and Taskforce is likely to result in a requirement for regrassing which is also a cost to landowners. This will be an issue particularly where boom or aerial spraying of larger infestations occurs.

9. Since Taskforce became available in mid 2011, staff have monitored a number of trial sites and believe that it has significant potential for the effective control of CNG.

10. Currently the incentive scheme pays for 50% of the cost of chemical and contractor costs up to a maximum of $3000 for any one property. Staff propose that 100% of the cost of Taskforce chemical is met directly by HBRC. A 50% subsidy on the contractor application cost and the $3000 per property maximum incentive payment remaining the same.

11. Based on the number of properties within Hawke’s Bay and the amount of control undertaken to date using Taskforce, staff estimate there would be an additional cost on HBRC of $15,000 per annum meet 100% of the cost of the chemical “Taskforce” for CNG control. Staff believe that provision of this additional support is justified as there are significant benefits to the long term ability to reduce CNG infestations in Hawke’s Bay. These benefits arise from the expected gradual reduction of the impacts of CNG on properties that have CNG infestations, and from the reduced risk that CNG will spread further across the region.

12. The management of plant pests is funded 60% from targeted rates and 40% from general funded sources. The additional cost will therefore be met $9000 from plant pest scheme funds and $6000 from general funding sources. As at 30 June 2012 the scheme held a credit balance of $11,301. Staff are confident that the additional cost to the scheme can be managed through scheme budgets until such time as a full review of the plant pest project is done as part of a review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy under the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2012. The general funded portion will be met from the contingency fund budget for additional unbudgeted items.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

13.4 The persons affected by this decision are those landowners that pay plant pest rates and those with CNG on their properties.

13.5 Options that have been considered are set out in this and previous reports.

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

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

Recommendations

That the Environment and Services Committee recommends Council:

1. Agrees to increase the plant pest budget (project 650) by $15,000 per annum to meet the cost of purchase of Taskforce for the control of Chilean needle grass (CNG) on private land.

2. Revises the plant pest incentive scheme operated under project 650 to meet 100% of the purchase cost of the chemical “Taskforce” for CNG control, and support land users who are required to control CNG through subsidising contractor application costs by 50% with a maximum grant of $3,000.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Makara Dam Repairs

Reason for Report

1. In a report to the August meeting of the Environment and Services Committee, staff advised that they would be able to provide an update to this meeting on the preferred option for repair of the Makara No 1 dam, with an indicative cost estimate.

2. This paper sets out the options considered with indicative cost estimates but concludes that all are unaffordable by the Scheme. Staff therefore seek agreement to delay any decision with regard to repair of the dam until further investigation is done to assess the cost versus benefit of alternative flood mitigation options.

Background

3. Since the Council meeting of 15 August 2012, HBRC have been working with specialist dam consultants, Damwatch Services Ltd, to prepare solutions for the repair of the Makara No.1 Dam.

4. The preliminary design report and cost estimate was received on 4 October in accordance with the programme agreed with the consultant. The programme was established with the objective of completing construction of the chosen option during the 2013/14 summer.

5. As part of the design process many different options for repair have been considered and critically examined for practicality and cost. Three options were selected to be considered in more detail to enable cost estimates to be prepared for comparison purposes.

Conventional Repair

6. The selected conventional repair option consists of:

6.1. Excavation of a cutting above the existing corrugated steel culvert

6.2. The replacement of the entire corrugated steel culvert with a concrete pipe

6.3. Repair of the damaged embankment materials above the culvert by backfilling and compaction

6.4. Repair the temporary spillway.

7. The Rough Order Cost for the Conventional Repair option is $1,200,000.

In-situ Repair

8. The selected in-situ repair concept comprises:

8.1. Diversion of the Makara Stream via a cut and fill channel across the detention pond bottom discharging through a cut in the temporary spillway

8.2. Partial sleeving and grouting, and partial excavation and replacement of the existing pipe with a 1600mm ID x 25mm thick steel pipe with concrete encasement

8.3. Retention of the existing inlet and outlet structures.

9. The Rough Order Cost for the In-situ Repair option is $1,350,000.

Decommissioning

10. The option to decommission Makara No. 1 Dam involves:

10.1. Excavating a slot through either the dam or an abutment to form a section of stable river channel in order that the dam ceases to retain water

10.2. The removal of the existing 2 m diameter culvert through the dam as part of excavating the slot.

11. The Rough Order Cost for the Decommissioning option is $360,000.

12. Decommissioning could be considered as an option provided:

12.1. the need for the detention dam no longer exists or

12.2. the cost of repair is such that the cost outweighs the benefits.

13. In both cases the decision on the benefits needs to be decided by the ratepayers and HBRC. It is noted as a result of the investigations carried out for the repair options that although the dam reduces in flood peak at the dam itself for relatively frequent events, once translated downstream to Elsthorpe the effect is reduced somewhat. This is due to the additional inflows from the sub-catchments downstream of the dam contributing to the total flow.

14. The dam attenuates (reduces) the flood peak for a 5 year event, but for events larger than that there is virtually no effect on the flood peak as the excess flood water spills over the dam spillway. For the less frequent flood events there is still a benefit of reduced time over which the higher discharges occur. However the effects of this attenuation downstream (e.g. at Elsthorpe) are diminished as other tributary catchments contribute.

15. If the dam is to be repaired, staff believe that the best long term option is for the conventional repair option. Concrete pipes have a useful life estimated to be 70 years. The steel pipe option has a useful life also estimated to be in the order of 70 years due to its thick walls and grouted annular covering.

16. A full report on the repair options plus estimated costs prepared by Damwatch will be available prior to the Council meeting on 31 October, however is not available to attach to this report.

17. The Damwatch report has estimated costs for the options that are considerably higher than those presented in this report. This difference is primarily in the determination of set up costs, contractor overhead and profits, management costs, design, supervision and contingency allowances. HBRC staff believe their knowledge of local conditions and contractors (including the HBRC Operations Group) enable them to amend the estimates to those presented in this report.

18. For all of the above options temporary works to manage the stream flows during the construction phase (including the risk of a flood event occurring during construction) have been included, as have some environmental mitigation and restoration works expected to be required to meet Resource Consent requirements.

19. As a result of having good quality LiDAR ground information downstream flooding effects of a dam failure have been able to be better defined. This means the dam Potential Impact Category (PIC) has reduced from High to Low and less stringent consenting requirements are necessary.

20. All Scheme assets are valued. The current value for the Makara No 1 dam is $854,002. This figure represents the cost of construction of the dam should it be constructed as a new structure. Annual depreciation for the structure is $12,200.

21. The preferred repair option is the replacement of the existing discharge pipe with a new concrete pipe (option 1 above). The total estimated cost of the project is set out below.

Description	Cost or estimated cost
LiDAR surveying	$19,879
Initial assessment by consultant	$24,866
Temporary spillway construction	$23,375
HBRC for hydraulic modelling, project management, community consultation etc to date	$30,554
Additional survey and soil testing	$7,834
Design	$80,000
Estimated construction cost including supervision	$1,200,000
Estimated consenting cost	$10,000
Estimated additional staff time	$20,000
Estimated total project cost	$1,416,500

22. This estimated proposed cost is substantially greater than the asset valuation recorded in Council’s asset values because:

22.1. The cost of initial assessment work and LiDAR surveying are not included in the asset valuation

22.2. The repair cost includes deconstruction of the existing structure as well as rebuilding, whereas the asset value is based on construction only.

23. Nevertheless the detailed assessment of cost will be used to assist in the review of asset values at the end of the 2012/13 financial year.

24. It should be noted that LAPP expect that repair costs for assets damaged by a disaster event are between 2 and 3 times the asset valuation.

25. The options presented in this report and associated cost estimates do not include the cost of desilting the ponding area of the dam. An earlier report estimated the cost of removing the silt to the 1980 state (at the time of construction) at in the order of $1,000,000. That report showed that the effectiveness of the dam has reduced and will continue to decrease as further siltation occurs.

26. Specifically the report showed that the dam was at 100% capacity when it was constructed and reduced the flood peak by 69%, but as a result of siltation the flood peak reduction has been reduced by 9%. The standard is expected to further reduce by a further 8% by 2022 if siltation continues at its current rate. In other words the effectiveness of the dam is steadily reducing resulting in increased flood risk downstream. This must be taken into account when considering the proposed repairs to the dam.

Insurance

27. HBRC has insurance cover for its infrastructure assets. Commercial insurance covers assets other live tree edge protection which suffer damage from a natural hazard event. This insurance is for 60% of the cost of repair of the assets up to a maximum of $16,000,000 above a deductible of $3,000,000. This means that the cost of repair of the damage must exceed $3,000,000 before any claim will be considered.

28. HBRC is also a member of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) which is a mutual insurance scheme set up by local government specifically to cover local authority infrastructural assets. LAPP will meet 40% of the cost of repair of infrastructure assets above a deductible of $1,128,000 (1% of the infrastructure asset value insured).

29. Staff have not tested whether or not a claim for this work would be considered by LAPP, and therefore whether LAPP would meet a portion of the cost. Staff will seek advice from LAPP on the possible success of a claim however are not confident that it would be favourably considered. The reasons for this are:

29.1. The steel discharge pipe had been identified by pipe inspections to be near the end of its useful life and therefore in need of repair.

29.2. The event that is most likely to have caused the failure occurred on or around 25 April 2011. On 13 April 2011, HBRC received a letter from LAPP advising that as a result of the Christchurch earthquake they were unable to provide any insurance for flood protection assets until at least 30 June 2011 or until suitable reinsurance cover and/or Government support is in place.

30. Staff are currently reviewing the disaster damage insurance cover for HBRC infrastructure assets, and expect to complete this review and report back to Council in the near future. However staff expect that significant reductions in deductibles will not be cost effectively achievable, and expect to reaffirm the need to HBRC to hold reserves to cover its financial exposure to issues such as this.

Financial and Resource Implications

31. The Scheme holds the following accounts.

Account	Balance as at 1 July 2012
Operating account	-$39,050
Depreciation account	$171,880
Disaster reserve	$40,745

32. Staff have assessed the ability of the Scheme to pay for a loan to fund the repair work. Staff have determined that the Scheme could afford a loan of no more than $200,000, if the depreciation charge on the new structure was used to meet the cost of servicing that loan. A loan of this size would require some increase in Scheme rates to meet the costs of serving the loan.

33. Accordingly the work would need to be funded as follows.

Funding source	Amount
Depreciation Reserve	$200,000
Scheme Loan	$200,000
Regional Disaster Reserve or general funding sources	$1,020,000

Scheme Reserves

34. The Scheme disaster reserve will be used to offset the current negative balance in the Scheme Operating account. This negative balance has arisen as a result of the unbudgeted expenditure associated with the damage to the No 1 dam in the 2012/13 year. This included LiDAR surveying and the initial assessment after the problem was identified.

35. Should the repair work proceed it is proposed that a loan of $200,000 be taken out for a 20 year period. HBRC will seek to secure a loan at the best rates possible for a 10 year period, after which the balance of the loan will be refinanced for a further 10 year period.

36. To service the loan, Scheme targeted rates would need to increase by 10% for each of the next 4 years (this would mean scheme rates increase from $30,261 in 2012/13 to $33,287 in 2013/14 compared to an increase to $31,320 proposed in the LTP 2012/22, i.e. in dollar terms a difference of approx $1,970) and 4.5% in year 5 and in subsequent years. This compares with an annual rate increase of 3.5% proposed in the LTP 2012/22.

37. The annual depreciation of the new structure (approx $12,200) will be used to meet a portion of the loan servicing cost. Even with the increases in rate proposed, and the use of the annual depreciation attributable to the new structure the Scheme operating account position is predicted to deteriorate to reach a debit balance of approx -$72,000 in the 2022/23 year, after which the scheme balance recovers to be in credit in a further 10 years.

38. A Regional Disaster Reserve was established by HBRC in 1996 to ensure funds were available to deal with damage to infrastructure assets should there be a major disaster affecting the region. The fund was established to:

38.1. Meet any extraordinary costs of managing the response and recovery if a disaster event occurs

38.2. Meet, along with Scheme disaster reserves, the $3m excess for any event for damage covered by Council’s commercial infrastructure policy.

38.3. Council has resolved that this reserve should maintain a balance between $2.75m and $3.75m. This limit was set by Council at their meeting on 28 February 2007 which was the last time the disaster damage insurance for HBRC infrastructure assets was reviewed. As at 30 June 2012 the reserve had a market value for its investments of $3.475m.

39. A claim on the disaster reserve of in the order of $1,000,000 would deplete the reserve below the level proposed by Council when the Reserve was established.

Proposed way forward

40. Staff believe that:

40.1. the significant cost of repair, and the inability of the scheme to meet a large part of the cost

40.2. the questionable benefit of the dam in significantly reducing flooding throughout the Makara Valley, particularly given its reducing effectiveness due to siltation warrants further investigation into alternative options for mitigation of flooding in the Valley.

41. Accordingly staff recommend that they be given more time to assess alternative options and determine their cost versus benefit for flood mitigation along the Makara Valley. This could include improving channel capacity through channel widening and/or stopbanking. Staff expect to be able to report back to the December meeting of the Committee on alternative options.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

42.4. The persons affected by this decision are those landowners that pay rates to the Makara Scheme.

42.5. Options that have been considered are set out in this and previous reports.

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

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

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends Council:

1. Agrees 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.

2. Receives the report on the Makara No 1 dam.

3. Instructs staff to investigate and report back to the December meeting of the Committee alternative options and their cost versus benefit for flood mitigation along the Makara Valley.

Gary Clode

Manager Engineering

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Ohuia Drainage Scheme

Reason for Report

1. The main pump station structure servicing the Ohuia Drainage Scheme east of Wairoa has deteriorated and outlet pipes have failed. An assessment of options for its repair or replacement has been completed.

2. This paper and the attached report outline the issue and seek Council agreement to:

2.1. A proposal to replace the Ohuia pump station during the 2012/13 summer, and

2.2. A funding proposal to meet the cost of the work.

Background

3. The Ohuia Drainage Scheme is located just east of the town of Wairoa, in the coastal area bounded to the north by the low coastal hills and State Highway 2 and to the east by Whakaki Lagoon (see maps below). The catchment area is approximately 3370ha, and extends north of SH2 along Waiatai Road into steep hill country. The catchment enters Hawke Bay at the mouth of the Waihoratuna Lagoon. The Scheme provides drainage relief for the coastal plains which are intensively farmed and cropped.

4. Three pump stations service the Scheme.

Pump Station	Rakaikaho	Waihoratuna	Ohuia
Pumps water from:	Raikakaho Drain	Main Drain	Pump Drain
Pumps water to:	Waihoratuna Lagoon Channel	Waihoratuna Lagoon Channel	Ohuia Lagoon
Total Pumping capacity	200 l/s	500 l/s	Pump 1 = 200 l/s Pump 2 = 800 l/s Total = 1000 l/s
Number of pumps	1	1	2
Year of Construction	1986	1973	1982

5. A full assessment of the Scheme and its assets was completed in 2007. The review noted that the Ohuia pump station is in poor condition with some large cracks in the concrete work possibly arising as a result of differential settlement of the structure. In addition some leakage on the outlet pipe was also identified.

6. The review recommended that a replacement pump station be included in Council’s financial planning for the 2016/17 financial year. Rapid ongoing deterioration of the outlet pipe has resulted in the main pump having to be shut down in late August 2012 because of the risk of failure of the stopbank containing the Ohuia Lagoon. Staff therefore propose that the replacement of the pump station be brought forward and completed as soon as possible.

7. The proposed work involves the construction of a new pump station adjacent to the existing. Upon completion of the structure, the pumps will be removed from the current pump station and installed into the new station. The old station will then be removed and stopbank repairs completed. Levels in Ohuia Lake will need to be low to enable this work to be undertaken. An extended dry period is necessary for this to be achieved.

8. Recent investigations have also been completed to determine the feasibility of rationalising the pumping capability across the Scheme as part of a total project. The proposal involved:

8.1. Decommissioning the Waihoratuna pump station and relocating the pump into the Raikakaho Station. (The Waihoratuna pump has done approximately 400 hours running time over the last 10 years, and increased capacity at the Raikakaho Station will reduce the duration of flooding in that catchment.)

8.2. Relocating the Raikakaho Pump into the new Ohuia pump station – thereby increasing pumping capacity of the station by 20%.

9. Unfortunately the investigations have shown that this proposal is not simple as the pumps would require significant modification. This proposal is therefore not being pursued.

10. The works are therefore proposed to include:

10.1. Replacement of the Ohuia Pump station, with sufficient space for an additional pump to be installed in the future if that is required.

10.2. Improvements of the access track to the pump station so that it is able to be reached by a 4WD vehicle year round.

10.3. Repairs to the stopbank containing Ohuia Lake. This will be necessary as the discharge pipes from the pump station need to be removed.

10.4. Undergrounding the power supply between the pump station and the transformer to prevent frequent outages due to bird strike.

Funding

11. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $375,000.

12. It is proposed that this is funded as set out below.

Funding source	Amount
Ohuia Scheme depreciation Reserve	$125,000
Contribution from landowner	$50,000
Scheme loan	$180,000
General funding contribution	$18,750
Scheme operating reserve	$1,250
TOTAL	$375,000

13. As at 1 July 2012 the Scheme held $119,270 in its depreciation account. Annual depreciation of $13,727, plus interest on the Scheme balance will be credited to the depreciation account in the 2012/13 year.

14. The proprietors of Ohuia Incorporation have pledged $50,000 towards the project. Ohuia Station is managed by the Ohuia Incorporation on behalf of its owners. The Incorporation has pledged this contribution in recognition of the significant long term benefit that will be realised by the land owners.

15. The 2012/13 Long Term Plan provides for the pump replacement to be completed in the 2016/17 year and provides a cost of $300,000 in that year. In order to service the loan an increase in targeted rates to the Scheme of 10% is proposed in each of the 2016/17 and 2017/18 years. As a result of bringing the reconstruction of the pump station forward, staff propose that Scheme targeted rates be increased by 10% in each of the years 2013/14 and 2015/16, after which the rate of increase in targeted rates would be reduced to close to the rate of inflation.

Impact on scheme accounts and general funding

16. The Scheme is funded 95% from targeted rates and 5% from general funding. The impact on general funding is therefore $18,750. This will be met from the contingency fund set aside for unbudgeted items.

17. As stated above the Scheme depreciation account currently has a credit balance of approx $119,000. This will be utilised to part fund the proposed work. The Scheme currently funds depreciation of assets annually at $17,967. It is proposed that $6,500 annually (being the depreciation on the Ohuia pump station) of this is utilised to service the loan.

18. The Scheme operating account had a deficit of $24,054 at 30 June 2012. Financial forecasts established for the LTP 2012/22 estimated that the scheme would continue to run in deficit until 2016/17. This project will result in a deterioration of the Scheme operating account for approximately the next 6 years after which it would recover, returning to credit in approximately 12 years (ie 2025/26). It is estimated that the maximum deficit would be in the order of $60,000. Staff will continue to work with Scheme ratepayers to minimise Scheme expenditure and therefore the Scheme deficit.

Consultation

19. Staff have discussed the proposed work and funding with the Ohuia Incorporation Chairman who is supportive of the proposal to complete the work during the 2012/13 summer. Ohuia Incorporation pays approx 90% of the targeted rates to the Scheme. Subject to agreement by Council to the recommendations set out in this paper, staff will meet with other ratepayers to the Scheme and seek their support to the proposal prior to commencing to the proposed construction work.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

20.4. The persons affected by this decision are the ratepayers of the Ohuia Scheme.

20.5. Options are set out in a report that has informed this briefing paper. A copy of that report is available on request.

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

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

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees to proceed with the replacement of the Ohuia Pump station at an estimated cost of $375,000 subject to the agreement of all ratepayers to the Scheme, subject to staff being satisfied that there is general agreement from Scheme ratepayers.

3. Delegates the Chief Executive to secure loan funding of approximately $180,000 (but not exceeding $200,000) against the Ohuia Drainage Scheme to meet the portion of the cost of the project not funded from other sources.

Darren Gorst

Team Leader Operations

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Views on Petrochemical Management from Taranaki Region Tour

Reason for Report

1. This paper is presented for information only, to provide a summary of the views of staff who visited Taranaki Regional Council (TRC) on their current approach to oil and gas exploration regulation in that region and opportunities to learn from them.

Background

2. TRC has a mature oil and gas industry in their region that they regulate. Historically there have been incidents that have driven continual improvement in systems and processes and have seen unreliable operators move out of the region. The current TRC approach incorporates the learning’s from these incidents and builds on them. We stand to benefit significantly from this.

3. Staff have visited the region to learn about how TRC engages with the industry, their approach to regulation at a policy, consent and compliance level. Engaging with other regions has been promoted by this council and is important in developing consistency of approach and in working towards national standards for regulating this industry.

4. In total three staff visited on two occasions. The initial visit was on 23 January 2102 and involved staff from Gisborne, Horizons, Tararua and Central Hawke’s Bay councils. A subsequent visit was on 20 April 2012. All costs for HBRC were recovered against the pre application charging for the TAG-Apache process.

5. Staff were able to spend time talking to TRC staff about regulatory approaches and reviewing systems from a consent perspective and how the compliance operations were run.

6. Staff on the second trip visited a well site where a very small discharge of hydrocarbon had occurred to see how the TRC pollution response and compliance activities were conducted.

7. Staff were able to visit the Enzign 931 at the Manahewa – C wellsite where Shell Todd Oil Services (STOS) had initially drilled and then completed a well in excess of 4,000m deep. STOS staff and contractors were conducting well bore integrity testing at the time of the second visit.

8. Staff on the second visit looked at the ‘land farming’ site at the BTW company site where drilling mud, cuttings and associated fluids are managed.

9. Staff were able to form views on the operations they visited and the value of the availability of expertise from TRC for this region if dealing with oil and gas exploration in future, each is detailed further below:

Summary of TRC regulatory approaches

10. TRC has a ‘mature’ regime to manage consenting of oil and gas. This has developed through decades of experience with the industry. TRC staff have extensive experience with industry practises and this expertise has been offered for other regions. TRC are close to finalising a standard approach to consenting hydraulic fracturing operations and it is likely that this would be a benchmark for other regions to adopt. TRC staff note that it is important to get the right people to assist with assessing applications until such time as internal capability has been developed for this. There are a number of providers of this expertise including those engaged by this council ahead of the TAG-Apache application.

11. TRC conduct and publish compliance reporting on all oil and gas consents. This is done under a full cost recovery process. This approach allows a thorough and comprehensive approach to compliance reporting that allows public confidence that activities are being appropriately managed. Exploratory wells are monitored weekly and there is pre and post biomonitoring and water chemistry monitoring in adjacent water bodies. Production wells are monitored bi-monthly and annual reports are prepared and sent to companies concerned. These are also publically available.

12. TRC have an uncompromising approach to compliance. Enforcement action is swift and direct when incidents occur. There is often a cultural impact assessment done with any enforcement action to relate these effects to the Court. The industry players appreciate this approach and work hard to avoid incidents as they acknowledge a clean track record provides them with their social licence to operate.

13. A well equipped and accessible pollution response trailer is available at all times. This is something that this region already has in place.

Land spreading operations

14. Staff visited the area on the Taranaki coast where drilling mud’s are spread or ‘farmed’ back onto the land. This process is one of bioremediation whereby the soils naturally occurring microbial population degrade drilling waste (particularly hydrocarbons, other organic compounds and nitrogen). The site has a number of large storage pits where fluids are evaporated off leaving the muds. The muds are then spread onto areas that were previously highly erodible coastal dunes. Optimal land spreading balances the volume of waste spread against the soils assimilative capacity to assimilate waste. Loading limits and maximum application rates are dictated by resource consents.

Concluding comments

15. Staff believe that TRC operate a strong and robust process around the regulation of the oil and gas industry in their region. Their current monitoring and enforcement programme ensures that the industry continues to operate to a high standard and there are significant consequences for transgressions. There are significant opportunities for the regional sector to learn from the TRC approach and to adopt their model for regulating the industry. The offer to visit and learn from TRC has been extended to allow staff from the region to spend time with monitoring and compliance staff to learn ‘on the job’. This is something we will explore further if or when this industry looks set to return to the region.

16. It is important that as a sector we look to work across regions to ensure a high standard and consistent approach to regulation of this industry. These visits add to that effort.

17. As a final note TRC staff are producing a document called Regulating Hydraulic Fracturing (HF). The document has been produced after requests from the regional council Chief Executive’s group. This document whilst focused on the HF aspects of oil and gas exploration will have associated material and approaches for many other aspects of the activity (well integrity, flaring, well site preparation for example) that will make its application far broader than just HF. We intend to utilise this document, when available, for this region.

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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the report.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Update on Winter Air Quality Results & Heat Smart Update

Reason for Report

1. This report is for information only and presents the results of air quality monitoring, specifically PM₁₀ monitoring, in the Napier and Hastings airsheds during the winter of 2012, including a comparison to previous years.

2. Also provided is a summary of findings from the air quality modelling project undertaken by Golder Associates in 2011/12. The purpose of the modelling was to estimate the reduction in emissions needed to meet the National Environmental Standard (NES) for PM₁₀ and to investigate the transport of PM₁₀ between and within airsheds.

3. In tandem with the modelling project was work undertaken by Environet Ltd which aimed to put the modelling projections into the context of measures already in place to manage PM₁₀ emissions from domestic heating and whether these are likely to be sufficient to achieve the NES.

4. Finally, a brief mention is made of the results from the recently completed PM₁₀ screening monitoring campaign in Waipukurau that was conducted for a period of one year.

Background

5. Prior to this year, the NES for PM₁₀ (50µgm^-3 averaged over 24 hours) has been exceeded every winter in the Napier and Hastings airsheds since continuous PM₁₀ monitoring was established in both cities in 2006.

6. The NES regulations require that by September 2016 the Napier airshed must not exceed the standard more than once per year and the Hastings airshed no more than three times. By September 2020 both airsheds must not exceed the standard more than once per year. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is responsible for ensuring the standard is met.

7. Investigations into the sources of PM₁₀ within these airsheds identified that fires used for domestic heating are the primary contributor to measured concentrations. Council put in place a number of regulatory and non-regulatory measures to reduce emissions from this source. These include a ban on open fires and the gradual phase-out of older wood burners as well as providing funding assistance for conversions to clean forms of heating through the Heatsmart scheme.

8. The effectiveness of those measures should, over time, be evident in the concentrations of PM₁₀ being measured and it is anticipated that concentrations will progressively decrease as the dates for NES compliance draw near.

PM₁₀ monitoring 2006-2012

9. The measured PM₁₀ concentrations (24 hour averages) for Napier from 2006 to September 2012 are shown in Figure 1. Typically the NES has been exceeded 3-5 times each year but for the first time since continuous monitoring began, no measurements exceeded the standard during the 2012 winter, with the highest concentration being 49.4 µgm^-3.

Figure 1: Daily PM₁₀ (µgm^-3) concentrations at Marewa Park Napier from 2006 to September 2012.

10. The measured PM₁₀ concentrations (24 hour averages) for Hastings from 2006 to September 2012 are shown in Figure 2. Prior to this year the NES has been exceeded 12-28 times each year but only 10 occasions were observed during the 2012 winter. The highest concentration recorded was 59 µgm^-3 (which is the lowest winter maximum since continuous monitoring began at the St John’s site).

Figure 2: Daily PM₁₀ (µgm^-3) concentrations at St John’s College, Hastings, from 2006 to September 2012.

11. Air quality and meteorology are closely linked due to the role weather has in dispersing pollutants and providing the conditions which lead to the need for home heating. It is important to consider differences in winter weather when trying to assess any variations of PM₁₀ concentrations from year to year. This is done by taking the average of PM₁₀ concentrations only on days when the NES is most likely to be exceeded, otherwise known as “normalised” concentrations. Normalising concentrations to account for varying weather conditions is a widely accepted practice amongst Regional Councils and typically involves performing a regression tree analysis to identify the meteorological conditions associated with high pollution days. Such an analysis was undertaken by Environet Ltd for the Napier and Hastings airsheds.

12. In both Napier and Hastings the normalised winter PM₁₀ concentration in 2012 was lower than the previous 6 years (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Normalised winter PM₁₀ concentrations (µgm^-3) for the Napier and Hastings airsheds from 2006-2012.

13. It is important to note that the PM₁₀ standard must not be breached for five years before an airshed can be deemed non-polluting for the purpose of determining whether significant new discharges from industry require offsets.

Airshed modelling

14. In 2011 Golder Associates started a project modelling PM₁₀ concentrations in the Napier and Hastings airsheds based on monitoring data up to 2010. The purpose was to provide an estimate of the spatial distribution of PM₁₀, to quantify transport of the pollutant between and within airsheds and to update projected reductions in emissions required to meet the NES. The main findings from this exercise were:

14.1. The peak modelled PM₁₀ (24 hour average) was relatively high in Marewa (the site of monitoring) but the concentration is potentially higher in Pirimai.

14.2. The St John’s site in Hastings is relatively well placed, being within a ring of peak PM₁₀ levels around central Hastings.

14.3. Very little of the PM₁₀ in Napier’s Airzone 1 originates in Hastings and vice versa. Nearly all exceedances of the NES in Napier would still occur if there were no emissions in Hastings and vice versa.

14.4. Dispersion within airsheds is significant. Approximately 30-40% of modelled PM₁₀ at Marewa Park originates within the Marewa Census Area Unit (CAU) with the largest contributions from other CAUs coming from those lying to the west and south. Approximately 30-60% of modelled PM₁₀ at St John’s College originates from the Mayfair CAU, with the largest contribution from other CAUs coming from Parkvale to the south.

14.5. The overall reduction in emissions, from 2010 levels, required to meet the NES is 44% in Napier and 48% in Hastings. This includes an “unmanageable” contribution from natural sources so the estimated reduction in emissions from domestic heating is 47% and 50% for Napier and Hastings respectively.

PM₁₀ Management

15. Environet Ltd compared the modelling projections with the reductions that are anticipated from implementing the regulatory and non-regulatory measures adopted by Council. The initial aim of those measures was for Napier and Hastings to reach compliance with the NES in 2020.

16. Management plans produced for Napier and Hastings by Environet are appended. The main conclusion is that the rules and incentives (provided by HeatSmart) currently in place should be sufficient to achieve the NES.

17. The main focus of HBRC’s HeatSmart programme is the phasing out and replacement of domestic fires that do not meet current national emission standards. In order to meet exceedance targets for PM₁₀ it has been estimated that HBRC would need to financially support the replacement of 10,000 domestic fires by 2020. The fire replacement target for HeatSmart up to 30 September 2012 was 1094. The actual number of replacements taking up HBRC grants/loans has been 1515, and the number accessing EECA subsidies has been 2637.

18. Home insulation incentives and the Dry Wood Scheme also contribute to the reduction of PM₁₀. Since 2009 766 homes have taken up HBRC financial assistance for insulation. Compared to national trends for insulation and clean heat take up through EECA schemes Hawke’s Bay continues to perform well, with 23% of houses in the Napier and Hastings airsheds accessing funding compared to a national average of 13%.

PM₁₀ Monitoring in Waipukurau

19. Screening monitoring for PM₁₀ was undertaken in Waipukurau from June 2011 to June 2012 with samples being taken every three days and 24 hour averages calculated. The purpose of screening monitoring is to collect data where no information about PM₁₀ concentrations currently exist and to determine whether high concentrations are observed. This type of monitoring utilises instruments that do not comply with the NES regulations so the results can provide an indication only of whether the NES for PM₁₀ might be exceeded.

20. Figure 4 shows a pie chart of results from PM₁₀ monitoring in Waipukurau. The standard of 50 µgm^-3 was not exceeded on any of the sample days. The highest concentration recorded was 41 µgm^-3 and for the most part air quality was good or excellent (less than 16.6 µgm^-3). It is quite possible that sampling every three days could miss an occurrence of high concentrations however it is noted that on two days when samples were taken the NES was exceeded in Hastings and on one of those days the NES was also exceeded in Napier.

Figure 4: Pie chart showing the percentage of samples from PM₁₀ monitoring in Waipukurau that fall within categories of NES Exceedance (>50µgm^-3), Alert (33.3-50 µgm³), Acceptable (16.6-33.3 µgm^-3), Good (5-16.6 µgm^-3) and Excellent (<5 µgm^-3).

Decision Making Process

21. 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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the report.

Kathleen Kozyniak

Senior Scientist Climate & Air

Mark Heaney

Heat Smart Programme Coordinator

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Group Manager External Relations

Attachment/s

1 View	Airshed Action Plan for Hastings
2 View	Airshed Action Plan for Napier

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: Provision of Vector Management Services in Hawke's Bay

Reason for Report

1. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (HBRC) contract to deliver vector management services to the Animal Health Board expires on 30 June 2013.

2. At the August meeting of the Environment and Services Committee, a report was received setting out a proposal for HBRC to transition out of the provision of these services over the 2013/14 financial year.

3. Staff circumstances have changed and it is now proposed that this transition occur earlier. The new proposal is for the transition to take place in the early part of 2013 with HBRC no longer delivering vector management services after the expiry of the current contract.

4. This paper is to update Council on this issue.

Background

5. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has provided a high quality professional vector management service for the Animal Health Board (AHB) for over 20 years.

6. The key person delivering that service is the leader of the vector management team, Owen Harris. Owen has advised that he wishes to transition to retirement and cease the provision of vector management services by 30 June 2013.

7. HBRC are the only remaining regional council providing vector management services to AHB within their region. Throughout the rest of the country AHB deliver the services using their own staff. The provision of vector control services has been delivered under contract to AHB for a number of years. Contracts are generally for a fixed term of two years, and therefore staff employed to deliver the services are generally employed on fixed term contracts.

8. HBRC’s direct involvement in, and resourcing of, vector management is not now as important in ensuring that value is gained through the integration of the PCA and AHB possum control programmes within the region as it has been in the past. This is for two main reasons:

9. The Possum Control Area programme initial control will be substantially completed this financial year.

10. The funding deed between HBRC and AHB which secures AHB funding for its vector control activities in Hawke’s Bay, includes clauses that require AHB to set up bait stations in AHB vector operations, and provide relevant AHB operational information, prior to their transition to the PCA programme.

11. Staff believe that these funding deed clauses should remain a precondition of any future regional share funding from Council.

12. Staff believe that based on the above factors it is appropriate to transition out of vector management by 30 June 2013. Staff are now working with AHB staff to facilitate this transition.

Decision Making Process

13. 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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee recommends Council receives the report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: 2011/12 Flood Control and Drainage Scheme Reports

Reason for Report

1. Asset Management Plans for each of the flood control and drainage schemes administered by HBRC requires that an annual report on each of the Schemes be presented to Council.

2. Copies of the annual reports on activities with regard to each of the flood control and drainage schemes administered by HBRC are appended to this paper for Committee member reference and are available to other parties on request.

Background

3. Reports on the following schemes are appended:

3.1. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme – Drainage and Pumping (Attachment 1)

3.2. Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme – Rivers (Attachment 2)

3.3. Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme (Attachment 3)

3.4. Minor Flood Control Schemes (Attachment 4) including:

3.4.1. Esk River Flood Control and Whirinaki Drainage Scheme

3.4.2. Porangahau Flood Control Scheme

3.4.3. Te Ngarue Flood Control Scheme

3.4.4. Poukawa Drainage Scheme

3.4.5. Makara Catchment Control Scheme

3.4.6. Paeroa Drainage Scheme

3.4.7. Ohuia Drainage Scheme

3.4.8. Kopuawhara Flood Control Scheme

3.4.9. Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme

3.4.10. Central & Southern Areas Rivers & Stream Scheme

3.4.11. Te Awanga Scheme

Decision Making Process

4. 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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee recommends Council receives the 2011/12 Flood Control and Drainage Schemes Annual Reports.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

1	H P Flood Control and Drainage Scheme - Drainage and Pumping	Under Separate Cover
2	Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme - Rivers	Under Separate Cover
3	Upper Tukituki Flood Control Scheme	Under Separate Cover
4	Minor Flood Control Schemes	Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 17 October 2012

SUBJECT: 2011/12 Biosecurity Annual Report - Pest Animals and Plants

Reason for Report

1. The Biosecurity Act 1993 requires HBRC, as management agency for the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), to prepare an annual report on the operational plan and its implementation not later than 5 months after the end of each financial year.

2. Copies of the annual report for HBRC’s activities with regard to Pest Plants and Animals is appended to this paper for Committee reference and are available to other parties on request.

3. This paper highlights key points in the 20011/2012 annual report.

Comment

The highlights of the 2011/2012 financial year are as follows.

Animal Pests

4. Twenty eight land occupiers, covering 24,434 hectares, had initial Possum Control Area (PCA) completed on their properties in 2011/2012. This initial control was carried out with around a 40% reduction in the cost of control by integrating commercial fur harvesting into the initial control. With the combined Possum control area and Animal Health board programmes, ninety seven percent of the region’s rateable land now receives the economic, animal health and biodiversity benefits of sustained low possum numbers. Completion of the remaining 16,000ha of initial control will mean control has been substantially achieved three years ahead of a target of 2016 set in 2001.

5. This excludes the approximately 25,000 ha in the Wairoa area where the 75% land user agreement threshold has not been met to allow PCA programmes to proceed.

6. A total of 101 land occupiers received initial maintenance facilitation visits during 2011/2012. There are now 2,362 land users who have received initial assistance, and are now managed as part of the ongoing maintenance phase.

7. Overall the PCA programme is highly successful with one of the lowest residual trapcatch results of any land user based programme of this kind in New Zealand. However many areas under maintenance have now been in the PCA programme for eight or more years with very low possum numbers over that time. Some land users are now not seeing the need to continue to undertake regular maintenance. Given the overall scale and success of the PCA programme these land users are effectively being carried by the efforts of their neighbours.

8. A number of additional initiatives are being implemented by staff to ensure that this issue is managed and low possum numbers are maintained on the PCA programme in the long term. These include:

8.1. Additional monitoring both in general and specifically targeted to at risk properties.

8.2. The allocation of additional resources to directly contact land users whose control efforts may be insufficient to keep numbers low on their property.

8.3. Initiating and supporting research to assist in the most adaptive and cost effective control options long term.

8.4. Issuing notices of direction with enforcement follow up where required including the potential for default action.

9. The aerial rook control programme is proving to be highly successful. A total of 90 active nests were treated across the eradication zone north of SH5 compared to 59 in the 2010/2011 financial year. A total of 657 active nests were aerial treated across the control zone south of SH5 compared to 824 in 2010/2011. The increase in nests treated in the eradication zone in 2011/12 is believed to be as a result of rookeries south of SH5 moving north into the eradication zone. As rook numbers have decreased staff have also directed additional resources into finding previously unknown rookeries. This has been very successful and is a key element in the eventual eradication of rooks from Hawke’s Bay.

10. While RHD continues to circulate within Hawke’s Bay, immunity to RHD is now widespread within rabbit populations. Isolated hot spots of high rabbit numbers are now being seen. Over the next 2-3 years these areas may require localised rabbit control operations. There has been a slight decrease in RHD immunity levels among rabbit populations monitored by blood sampling. Staff are unable to explain why this may have occurred.

11. An urban pest management programme has been successfully completed over 4,866 ha of urban and peri-urban areas. Overall public response to the urban pest management programme has been excellent. Initial bird monitoring shows appreciable increases in native bird numbers within the urban pest management operational areas. This urban biodiversity programme now covers a total of 10,340 ha and will continue to be progressively rolled out to other urban areas within the Hawke’s Bay region.

12. A significant amount of work has taken place on argentine ants. The extent of known infestations of this pest is now mapped. An appropriate long term management response is being developed.

Plant Pests

13. The urban Privet programme is now delivering a much higher level of productivity through the use of a contractor, with the cost of privet removals from properties reduced from $525 to $260. Rapid progress on the reduction of privet is now being made in the urban environment. The human health impacts of privet on the urban ratepayer should be significantly reduced over the next 2-3 years.

14. The removal of Pinus Contorta on the 90 ha core area on multiple ownership Maori land at Rangitaiki has been completed.

15. Low incidence plants controlled were Climbing spindleberry, Cathedral bells, Blue passion flower, Phragmites and Asiatic Knotweed.

Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy

16. The Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy was drafted as a separate strategy to the Regional Plant Pest and Animal Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) as it is specific to the Pip Fruit Sector.

17. HB Fruit Growers’ advise that this Strategy has been effective in enabling them to influence the effective management of abandoned and derelict orchards. HB Fruit Growers’ Association have used this process with a number of growers over the past 5 years, with a satisfactory outcome being achieved without Council intervention.

18. Staff have met with representatives of Pipfruit NZ as well as representatives from HB Fruitgrowers Assoc, HB Grapegrowers Assoc, HB Vegetable Growers Assoc and Kiwifruit and Berryfruit Growers. These groups are keen to work with HBRC to further develop this strategy to cover threats to their sectors, and to develop a more proactive approach to the early identification of disease and pest risks to their industries. Council staff propose to work with these industry groups over the next two years as the Biosecurity Act Amendment Bill 2012 requires reviews of current Strategies to be completed within that time.

Other

19. Staff continue to lead didymo coordination as a key regional stakeholder in the Hawke’s Bay East Coast regional response group.

Decision Making Process

20. 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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Environment and Services Committee recommend Council receives the Pest Animals and Plants reports for activities undertaken during the 2011/2012 financial year.

Campbell Leckie

Manager Land Services

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

2011/12 Biosecurity Annual Report - Pest Animals & Plants

Under Separate Cover

Meeting Date	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status/Comment
15 Aug	7	Biodiversity Strategy	IM	Oct	Terms of Ref yet to be developed by the Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group.

1	Statutory Advocacy Update
2	Statutory Advocacy Map

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.