Source: http://hawkesbay.infocouncil.biz/Open/2014/04/ESC_09042014_AGN_AT.HTM
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 13:01:49
Document Index: 729390774

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 1']

Agenda of Environment and Services Committee - 9 April 2014
Date: Wednesday 9 April 2014
3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 12 February 2014
4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on 12 February 2014
5. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda
6. Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings
7. Infrastructure Asset Insurance
8. Coastal Strategy
9. Review of Regional Pest Management Plans
10. Nimmo-Bell Alternative Investments Report – at 10.30 am
11. National Horticultural Field Days
12. QEII National Trust - Presentation from Troy Duncan, HB Representative and Meg Gaddam – at 1.00 pm
13. Science Reports April 2014 Update
15. Minor Items Not on the Agenda
That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following minor items not on the agenda, for discussion:
SUBJECT: Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings” report.
Follow Up Items from previous meetings
Various field trip destinations suggested
Memo circulated, feedback sought.
Stopbanks – provide Councillors with a copy of the last report on the state of our stopbanks
Use of prisoners on Council projects
RIVER MAINTENANCE AUDIT 2012 / 2013
PROJECT 265: UPPER TUKITUKI FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME
PROJECT 286: HERETAUNGA PLAINS FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME
These annual audits are carried out to:
· observe progress of the major river works from year to year
· ensure that the design philosophy is sound and is effective
· assess the effectiveness of the major river works from year to year
· gauge the effectiveness of particular design methods and techniques
· observe failed areas and learn from these what works and what doesn’t
· determine if the current maintenance is adequate to achieve the aims of the scheme and design assumptions
· determine the effect on channel capacity and design grade
The audit is intended to cover the whole range of flood control works related to the major scheme rivers. This includes observation of:
· the condition of the scheme stopbanks and structures affecting the integrity of the stopbanks
· berm and buffer zone
· the active channel
Locations to be inspected are decided on the basis of the amount of work carried out each year, particular problem areas, areas noted for further inspection at the previous audit and areas less frequently visited during the year. Problem areas include places where edge protection works have been difficult to establish due to perhaps a series of flood events, harsh ground conditions, stopbank seepage areas and areas where damage has recently occurred.
Random inspections are carried out throughout the year usually to observe specific areas and to generally gauge the adequacy of the regular maintenance items such as mowing, spraying and beach raking. Observation of rivers during and after flood events is also important to carry out. For the period of this report (July 2012 to June 2013) it was a relatively quiet time for floods and through the summer of 2012 the region endured severe drought conditions.
This year’s inspection was in the winter of 2013 which allowed the success of the 2012 winter planting to be determined. There have been no major river maintenance construction items in this time.
Completion of Willow Sawfly Work: In the 2006 / 2007 year an all out effort was made to complete the bulk of the remaining edge protection work in critical areas that was devastated by the willow sawfly. All other programmed channel improvement works were put on hold. In the 2007/2008 year the last of the major willow sawfly work was completed in the Tutaekuri River corridor.
The willow sawfly work has now been completed (since 2008) and the areas affected have all re-established themselves with good vegetation growth around the groynes and between each groyne. The affected areas can now be considered to be providing protection as good as or better than that which existed prior to the sawfly invasion that destroyed the willow edge protection.
HERETAUNGA PLAINS FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME
a) Tutaekuri River
River distances where buffer zone repair work was carried out are described by the established cross section locations (XS).
Stopbank mowing work, beach raking and spraying work as part of the annual work programme has been completed.
Level of Service (LOS) requirements of Asset Management Plans
(refer AMP, May 1999)
LOS achieved
Groynes in some areas are well established with dense willow growth established.
Comment: Work has been carried out to expectations and as required by asset management contracts. The willow sawfly work has become well established generally over most of the affected areas such that the level of service is now back to conditions that existed prior to the initial infestation and subsequent damage.
b) Ngaruroro River
Performance of the new protection works is up to expectation with the new works performing well in the frequent small floods since work was carried out. Some movement of the groynes has occurred and this was expected and is no cause for concern. Downstream of the groynes eddy effects have resulted in minor scour in some instances; again predictable and of no concern at present. Willow planting in these areas has been successful which is a good sign of the river edge being re-established and a good edge protection being maintained.
Stopbank mowing work, beach raking and spraying work has been completed. Native plants are now becoming better established and surviving the harsh conditions as a result of trying different techniques.
c) Lower Tukituki River
As for the Ngaruroro the groynes are performing well during the small floods experienced post construction.
Damage at the right bank near the river mouth was been repaired last year with concrete akmons in the form of 3 groynes and a 4th groyne if needed at a later date has been allowed for with the consent. The work has settled in well with no requirement for a further groyne at this stage.
A watch is being kept on wave-lap erosion of the bank at the outlet to Grange Creek. Rock protection may be required in the future.
Stopbank mowing work, beach raking and spraying work has been completed. The fennel plant is an ongoing pest and is rampant in some areas.
Sea Exclusion Banks, Groynes
Groynes protect this area and it would be good to get some planting established between the groynes if possible.
Comment: Work has been carried out to expectations and as required by asset management contracts.
d) Maraetotara River
Stopbank inspection was carried out in May 2013 including all urban properties that have sections that include the stopbank. The field assessment condition was generally excellent with no significant issues. A small amount of rockwork is required to maintain the existing rock toe and some tree trimming is also required. This will be attended to as part of the normal maintenance programme.
UPPER TUKITUKI FLOOD CONTROL SCHEME
a) Tukituki River
Routine maintenance was completed as per current contracts. The length of stopbank from XS52 to XS62 on the right bank was subject to some concern about capacity during the July 2007 flood event and was subsequently upgraded. This section of the stopbank surface was smoothed-over and re-grassed this year.
The 2009/2019 LTCCP has provision for planting trials to better understand the native planting issues and plant selection for these harsh conditions. This is still a tough area to get plants established but better techniques are working.
(refer AMP, December 1997)
Native vegetation trials only partly successful, but not a critical risk issue. Some good results are being obtained.
Flood damage experienced from time to time, generally minor and repaired when conditions allow.
b) Waipawa River
Generally OK with mainly routine maintenance being carried out. Old Man’s Beard is a significant plant pest problem that requires constant removal.
c) Makaretu River
The main work items for the Makaretu this year relate to regrowth spraying and beach raking
There are no significant issues with the annual work carried out for this scheme.
d) Tukipo River
The main work items for the Tukipo this year relate to plant pest spraying and beach raking. Old Man’s Beard is still very prevalent on the Left Bank. This is a difficult pest to eradicate.
e) Mangaonuku River
The main work items for the Mangaonuku this year relate to some plant pest spraying and beach raking.
There are no significant issues with the annual work carried out for this scheme
The major Hawke’s Bay rivers are in good shape with a significant recovery from the sawfly damage. Going into the 2012/13 summer, with no new sawfly damage to date, the edge protection works were in a healthy state. It will take more time yet for the young willows to establish a good root structure and for the natives and other non-willow species to become better established. We continue to be in a much sounder position than in 2005 when critical reaches had a reduced design flood standard probably as low as a 10% AEP based on lateral berm scour estimates. My estimate for the same critical areas is that currently the design standard is now back to the 1% AEP standard that existed prior to the sawfly issue . This is a good result.
From the sample audits carried out throughout the year and this final audit, in my opinion the Levels of Service described in the current Asset Management Plans have by and large been achieved. The exceptions to this have been described and have either been attended to or are in the process of being attended to.
Reference: 1. Asset Management Contract 2012 / 2013.
From: MASSINGHAM, George (HAWKPP) [mailto:George.MASSINGHAM@CORRECTIONS.GOVT.NZ]
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2014 8:31 a.m.
To: Michael Adye
Subject: RE: Use of prisoner labour
I have adjusted point 3 so fits with our capability to support. Points 1 and 2 are supplied from the prison, point 3 is from Community Corrections (those serving a community sentence). Hope this helps.
Hawkes Bay Regional Prison (HBRP)
DDI: 76026
Tel: 06 872 8026
Cell: 021 769 651
EA: 06 872 8007
George.massingham@corrections.govt.nz
From: Michael Adye [mailto:Mike@hbrc.govt.nz]
Sent: 02 April 2014 3:04 p.m.
To: MASSINGHAM, George (HAWKPP)
Subject: Use of prisoner labour
Good to talk to you earlier this week. My understanding of the situation is set out below.
As discussed HBRC are keen to utilise prisoner labour where their input is appropriate and where it will benefit both of our organisations objectives. I understand from the prison point of view any work opportunities for prisoners are considered and taken up if resources are available and it fits within your reducing re-offending goals and bottom line of public safety.
I understand that there are generally 3 categories of groups that could be available
1. Prisoner work parties are available to work in the community. The prison members of these work parties are paid an incentive rate of .20 - .60 cents per hour, except for a few prisoners, who have higher skill levels and who take on additional responsibilities such as teaching other prisoners. These prisoners get paid at a higher rate. It is common practice for supervised groups of low and minimum security prisoners to work with local and regional councils, communities or businesses outside the prison. They work in areas such as forestry, horticulture, farming, construction and grounds maintenance.
These prison work parties serve the dual purpose of doing useful work in the community and helping prisoners become productive and contributing members of society. Prisoners must be minimum or low security to take part in a work party, and they have an extra assessment to ensure they are suitable to go out into the community. Work parties are escorted by a Corrections Officer.
2. The release to work (RtW) programme is different to prison community work parties. RtW allows minimum security prisoners who meet strict eligibility criteria to engage in paid employment in the community, in order to help them gain employment on release. Prisoners receive market wages and are required to pay expenses such as board and any outstanding fines or court imposed reparation to victims. Once expenses are removed from their earnings, the balance is placed into the prisoner’s savings trust account to assist with their transition back into the community on their release.
3. Offenders on Community Work sentences managed and supervised by Probation Staff are available to help the Council. These offenders do unpaid work to pay something back to the community for the offence they have committed. It also gives offenders an opportunity to take responsibility for their offending and learn new skills and work habits. Offenders can be required to do between 40 and 400 hours of community work. I note that the sentence of Community Work replaced periodic detention in 2002, periodic detention is no longer a sentencing option. The contact person for community based work crews is Stu McKenzie at stuart.mckenzie@corrections.govt.nz or direct dial (06) 834 2220
Subject to your confirmation that my understanding is correct I will circulate this to HBRC staff who may be in a position to utilise prison labour. Should we identify a potential opportunity please advise who the contact person within your organisation should be to assess the suitability of the opportunity and determine appropriate arrangements.
Group Manager – Asset Management
P 06 835 9203 | M 027 241 8616 | F 06 835 3601
mike@hbrc.govt.nz | www.hbrc.govt.nz
1. This report reviews Council's financial risk management provisions for its infrastructure assets when impacted by a disaster.
2. The report recommends some changes to the current arrangements and sets out a proposed policy.
3. HBRC holds insurance for damage to any Council owned fixed asset, e.g. pump station, for the full cost of repair in excess of $10,000 of reinstatement of the asset. This is through a material damage policy with a commercial insurer. This report recommends that this insurance is maintained.
4. HBRC currently has a 3 tiered approach to managing and/or transferring the financial risk for disaster damage to infrastructure assets other than fixed assets. The tiers are:
4.1. Tier 1
Disaster reserves are held by each flood control and drainage scheme administered by HBRC. These reserves meet the cost of a relatively small disaster that results in the need for repairs to scheme infrastructure assets.
4.2. Tier 2
A regional disaster reserve is held to cover the difference between individual scheme disaster reserves and the excess on HBRC external insurance cover or government contribution.
4.3. Tier 3
External insurance provided by either a mutual arrangement and/or commercial insurance, and central government contribution.
5. The report recommends some changes to the way this is managed. It is proposed that:
5.1. The disaster damage reserves held for each flood control and drainage scheme are amalgamated into two Scheme disaster damage reserves, one covering Schemes on the Heretaunga Plains and the other covering all other Schemes
5.2. The regional disaster damage reserve is continued
5.3. HBRC continues with its membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP).
6. The proposed policy for these separate reserves is set out in the recommendation section of this report.
7. HBRC infrastructure assets are those associated with flood control and drainage schemes and open space areas owned and/or administered by Council. The most recent valuation of these assets estimates their replacement value at in excess of $190M.
8. HBRC could manage financial risk to its assets in several ways. HBRC could carry some or all of the risk itself (self-insurance), it could share the risk with other councils, or it could shift the risk by purchasing insurance.
9. HBRC is one of 46 member councils that operate a risk sharing arrangement, the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP). LAPP is a charitable Trust, not an insurance company. It is intended to help member councils meet their share of the costs, above a specified threshold, of restoring flood control and drainage infrastructure after a natural disaster.
10. HBRC holds disaster reserves to cover the LAPP threshold, ($1,259,000) specific exclusions from LAPP cover, and potential risks associated with central government funding.
11. Central government carries a portion of the risk through its policy to meet a portion of the cost of repair to local authority infrastructure assets following a disaster. This is also subject to a specific threshold (approx. $600,000) and to criteria set out in the Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Plan. Central government policy can be viewed on the following web address:
http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/For-the-CDEM-Sector-Publications-The-Guide.
Section 26 specifically deals with Government financial support.
HBRC Exposure to Infrastructure Asset Damage
12. Central government policy requires local authorities to have undertaken proper planning for risk management. Staff believe that like the existing HBRC policy, the policy recommended in this paper meets HBRC’s obligations with regard to proper planning.
13. HBRC’s infrastructure assets are most concentrated on the Heretaunga Plains. In a significant disaster event this area poses the highest risk of infrastructure asset damage. However the flood control and drainage assets on the Heretaunga Plains are considered robust in their ability to withstand a significant event which does not exceed their design capacity. A disaster affecting these assets is highly likely to also impact on Napier and/or Hastings and therefore trigger central government support.
14. HBRC also administers a number of smaller schemes throughout the region which are less robust. Some of these schemes protect rural areas. A significant localised disaster affecting one of more of them may not meet central government criteria for assistance under the National Civil Defence Plan.
15. The likelihood of damage to those Schemes is therefore greater than for assets on the Heretaunga Plains, and there is less likely to be a contribution from central government towards repair costs.
16. Attachment 1 sets out the possible level of damage in a range of return period flood events, and other significant natural hazard events.
Other financial exposure
17. HBRC’s financial exposure to a natural hazard event also includes the following.
17.1. The cost of responding to and managing the event, which could include:
17.1.1. Unbudgeted staff time
17.1.2. Plant and equipment hire including helicopters
17.1.3. Employment of unbudgeted external resource to support staff in the response. It is expected there will be considerable pressure on Council and as a result, Council staff to provide information, increase the level of communication (including public meetings).
17.2. The cost of reinstatement of any uninsured assets; which includes recreational assets that are not part of a flood protection and drainage Scheme, i.e. pathways and associated assets that are not constructed on a stopbank and assets within open space areas.
17.3. The deductable (excess) on any insurance and LAPP policy ($1,259,000) and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance ($600,000).
17.4. The risk that central government will determine that HBRC is not eligible for central government assistance because the disaster does not trigger the criteria set out in the National Civil Defence Plan.
17.5. The risk of the cost of reinstating the level of service provided by the assets costs considerably more than their estimated replacement or optimised replacement value, and central government and/or HBRC’s insurers refuse to cover a portion of that cost.
17.6. The cost of HBRC involvement in responding to issues with waterways outside Scheme areas.
17.7. Liability as a member of LAPP in the event that the LAPP fund is exhausted (ref section below).
LAPP Scheme
18. The LAPP Disaster Fund was established in 1993. LAPP currently has 46 local government organisation members. It will pay 40% of claim costs above a preset excess. The remaining 60% is paid at the discretion of government in accordance with the Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.
19. The LAPP fund was exhausted by claims following the Canterbury earthquakes in the 2010/11 financial year. It has been rebuilding since. At the end of the 2013/14 financial year it is expected to hold in excess of $12M, provided it has no major claims made against it. For the 2013/14 year LAPP has purchased reinsurance that allows it to provide cover of up to $60M above an excess of $40M. This, with a 60% contribution from central government, covers damage of up to $250M.
20. Until the fund is sufficiently large to meet the reinsurance excess, there is a mutual liability on each of the members should a disaster occur in any one of the member districts or regions. This liability will require HBRC to contribute up to a maximum of 5 times its annual contribution ($234,400 ex GST for the 2013/14 year) should a single event occur with damage exceeding $100M, and a further 5 times the annual contribution should a second event of equivalent size occur in that same year. This liability reduces as LAPP increases its fund.
21. LAPP reinsurance provides cover for two disaster events in any financial year.
22. The features of the Scheme are:
22.1. Annual contributions are based on a series of factors including the value of infrastructure assets, regional exposures to risk and extraordinary contributions that may be necessary
22.2. The fund is designed as natural disaster catastrophe protection
22.3. Distributions are at the discretion of the Trustees and members are not guaranteed a distribution in the event of a natural disaster or emergency, however the intent of LAPP is to meet the needs of local authorities
22.4. Contributions are held in trust for the purposes of the fund
22.5. Payout from the fund is not dependant on Central Government contributing under the National CDEM Plan
22.6. LAPP covers all assets that are part of engineered flood control schemes, including live trees and walkways and pathways where these are part of a stopbank, provided they are included on the asset schedule provided by Council
22.7. LAPP covers assets which are declared at “optimised replacement cost”
22.8. HBRC excess for LAPP is $1,259,000 for the 2013/14 year. This is reviewed by LAPP annually.
23. Staff reviewed the relative benefits of commercial insurance vs. LAPP in more detail in the briefing paper presented to the Corporate and Strategic Committee on January 2013. At that time Council agreed to remain a member of LAPP and not to renew its commercial insurance policy for infrastructure assets in the 2013/14 financial year. A copy of that briefing paper is available on request.
24. Government policy is to meet 60% of the cost of a disaster above the threshold of 0.002% of the capital value of the region (approx. $600,000). This financial support may be available during or after a civil defence emergency subject to on a range of mandates, criteria and triggers, which may be in statute, regulation or Cabinet decisions, or made by ministerial discretion. Cabinet will identify and approve the overall appropriate mix of government financial support to be provided.
25. The Guide to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Plan states “The purpose of this emergency recovery is to restore the affected community to a position in which normal social and economic activity may be resumed as quickly as possible. To achieve this, it is essential to have proper planning for risk management. The Government considers local risks to be a local responsibility. Local authorities are primarily responsible for dealing with the impact of an emergency in their geographical and functional areas of responsibility. Government assistance is contingent upon that expectation.”
26. HBRC’s infrastructure assets have an optimised replacement cost of $190,510,000. This is the value stated in the September 2013 asset Schedule provided to LAPP. These values will be used by LAPP for determining the HBRC contribution for the 2014/15 financial year. Note at this stage optimised values for the river edge only have been included. Values for other assets will be reviewed over time as Scheme reviews are undertaken. Details of the make-up of this value are set out in Attachment 2 (tables 5 & 6).
27. Optimised replacement cost means the cost of reinstating the asset using design codes and techniques, materials, or alternative structures that have been determined as the most appropriate for that asset if it was to be built today.
28. The difference between the estimated replacement cost and optimised replacement cost for the river edges is approximately $35M.
Managing HBRC Financial Exposure
29. As at 30 June 2013, HBRC held the following disaster reserve funds.
Balance as at 30 June 2013
Scheme Reserves
Other small schemes
Heretaunga Plains - Rivers
$1,160,656
Heretaunga Plains – Drainage catchments
$2,479,790
Wairoa Flood Reserve
$3,332,758
$6,515,208
30. The Regional Disaster Reserve and individual Scheme reserves were established in 1996 in accordance with HBRC policy. Not all of the Scheme reserves are at their target levels. This is because:
30.1. Some have been drawn on to meet the cost of repairs following a flood event
30.2. Some have limited funding to enable them to build up their funds. The Scheme disaster reserves are linked to inflation resulting in their threshold increasing each time the assets are revalued.
31. The Wairoa Flood Reserve was established from $500,000 committed by Council at its meeting on 7 June 2000 to Wairoa flood mitigation works, as well as $144,000 retained as part of the surplus funds share arising from a Port of Napier Special dividend due to Wairoa area ratepayers.
32. Wairoa is at risk from flooding as no mitigation works have ever been built. A range of options to provide flood protection to Wairoa urban area have been investigated but none were identified that were effective and affordable to the community. To compound Wairoa’s risk, water levels in the lower reaches of the river, can be artificially heightened when the river mouth bar has a reduced flood capacity. The river mouth drifts up or down the coast over a distance of approximately 2km depending on sea and river conditions. Under certain sea and river conditions, or when the river mouth is in certain locations the mouth can become blocked. Lower areas of Wairoa town can be flooded unless the river mouth is mechanically opened. In 2000 HBRC enhanced the early warning system for potential flooding of Wairoa, and established the Wairoa Flood Reserve to fund a significant HBRC response should flooding occur.
33. The purpose of this Reserve is to fund flood mitigation and recovery work within the Wairoa District.
34. Staff propose that HBRC:
34.1. Continues to mitigate the financial risk associated with a disaster through transferring some risk (40% above the prescribed threshold) through membership of LAPP.
34.2. Relies on Central Government to meet 60% of the cost of reinstatement of assets (above their prescribed threshold) following most significant disaster events.
34.3. Maintains a tiered system of managing its financial exposure to a disaster, with any withdrawals from HBRC reserves at Council discretion, including:
34.3.1. Each flood control and drainage scheme having access to funding sources to meet reinstatement costs up to the capacity of the respective fund, or the LAPP excess, whichever is the smaller, subject to any limitations established by Council policy
34.3.2. A regional disaster reserve to cover the financial exposure of HBRC as set out in section 17 above, subject to any limitations established by Council policy
34.3.3. Continues to maintain a separate flood reserve for the Wairoa District.
35. With regard to 34.3.1 above, staff recommend that Scheme disaster reserves are managed as follows.
Heretaunga Plains Flood Control and Drainage Scheme Disaster Reserves
36. The Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers is by far HBRC’s largest Scheme. The optimised replacement value for its assets is $88,138,000 as at 30 June 2013. There are also 9 Drainage Catchment Scheme areas servicing the Heretaunga Plains with assets with a replacement value of $52,452,000. While the drainage assets within one of the drainage areas could be impacted by a disaster event, the most likely scenario is that a disaster causes widespread damage to a number of the Scheme areas including the Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers.
36.1. A major disaster event causing such widespread damage is most likely to trigger the criteria for central government funding under the National Civil Defence Plan, and therefore the financial exposure of HBRC is reasonably predictable.
36.2. Disaster reserves for all of the Schemes covering the Heretaunga Plains had a balance as at 30 June 2013 of $1,799,022.
36.3. Staff suggest that Schemes covering the Heretaunga Plains stand on their own. A proposed policy for this area is set out in the recommendations below.
Other Schemes Disaster Reserves
37. There are 14 other flood control and drainage schemes administered by HBRC. The largest of these is the Upper Tuktituki Scheme. The combined optimised replacement value of infrastructure assets for these schemes is $49,920,000. Some Schemes have no assets as the purpose of the Scheme is to maintain waterways free of vegetation with the potential to impede the flow. As at 30 June 2013 the disaster reserves held for all of these Schemes was $680,768. Note that the Makara Scheme disaster reserve was drawn down by $40,200 during the 2012/13 financial year to fund initial work for the repair of the Makara No 1 dam.
37.1. It is proposed that the disaster reserves for each of these Schemes be combined into a Small Scheme disaster reserve. It is possible that significant damage to one or more of these small Schemes will occur in any one event without triggering the criteria for central government funding under the National Civil Defence Plan. This reserve will therefore need to cater for an increased level of risk than the Heretaunga Plains Scheme reserve.
37.2. It should also be noted that the assets in a number of these schemes are prone to damage because the schemes are in a number of cases designed to provide a flood protection standard of less than a 1% annual exceedance probability (commonly known as a 100 year standard), and because operational budgets are limited to allow for a basic standard of maintenance.
37.3. Staff therefore propose clear limitations with regard to what will be funded by the reserve and what remain Scheme costs. These limitations are set out in the proposed policy. It is also necessary to ensure that the fund is equitable to all schemes. This means that their contribution to the reserve is in proportion to the risk of them drawing funding from the reserve to meet the cost of repairs to those assets.
37.4. The proposed criteria for this reserve are designed to provide equity among these Schemes. Every disaster event will be unique. It is therefore impossible to determine the likely impact of future disasters on individual schemes. It is suggested that the criteria are regularly reviewed and updated.
38. The Regional Disaster Reserve has been established to:
38.1. Meet any extraordinary costs of managing the response and recovery to a disaster event
38.2. Meet up to 60% of any unfunded portion of asset reinstatement cost following a disaster event.
39. Current policy requires the Regional Disaster Reserve to be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range $2.75M to $3.75M, and states that if investments exceed $3.75M in value then some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account.
40. Since the inception of the Disaster Reserve (over 10 years ago) this fund has been managed by Pearson Investment Advisory Ltd, a Wellington based investment advisor who manages funds for a number of local bodies. Council’s policy is to allocate investment of these funds to equity (30%) and government stock (70%). Because of the investment in equities component, returns have on average been 1% higher than Council could have obtained if the funds were put on term bank deposits.
41. Initial Council policy determined that interest and dividends were to be used by Council’s general operating account, however for the last two years in order to build up the fund, dividend and interest has been credited back to the fund. The market value of investments held in this fund was $3.6M at 30 June 2013. Even with Council’s commitment to transfer $720,000 to the rebuilding of the Makara dam, the balance in this fund will still be just under $3M.
42. This paper recommends that when the value of this fund exceeds $3M, 2.5% return on these funds accrue to the Regional Disaster Reserve and any return in excess of 2.5% be credited to Council’s general operating account. If the fund is below $3M, then all returns be credited to the Reserve.
43. 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:
43.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
43.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
43.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
43.4. No persons are directly affected by this issue.
43.5. Options that have been considered are set out in this paper and previous papers on the issue.
43.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
43.7. 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.
2. Adopts the following HBRC Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy, including any amendments agreed at the Committee meeting.
HBRC Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy
This policy supersedes HBRC’s Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy adopted by Council in 2007, and subsequent decisions regarding this issue.
This review (March 2014) has confirmed that HBRC continues to face considerable ongoing financial risk from a natural disaster event.
This policy deals specifically with disaster damage risks to HBRC owned or administered infrastructure assets, and the requirement for HBRC to respond to an event that causes major disruption to the community.
In addition to its role as the manager of flood control and drainage schemes throughout the region, HBRC will play a significant role in any response as a result of its civil defence responsibilities including resourcing to the civil defence emergency coordination centre, and the provision of reconnaissance and hazard information to input to the response planning and decision making. There may also be a significant cost in securing information and data arising from the event, especially a flood event. Significant flood events provide a valuable source of data to enable verification of models and assumptions made as part of HBRC staff flood hazard assessment and flood control and drainage activities.
HBRC may qualify for Central Government assistance for the reinstatement of HBRC infrastructure assets in the event of a disaster however such assistance is more likely to be forthcoming following a significant disaster affecting the Heretaunga Plains. Central government assistance is less likely to be available for a disaster event impacting a small portion of the region.
While HBRC should meet the expectations of central government by implementing this policy, HBRC acknowledge that central government and LAPP funding may not be available to cover the costs of every disaster. This policy also makes some provision to cover that risk.
2. Financial Risk Management Initiatives
HBRC will mitigate its financial risk associated with a disaster event. The following will make up HBRC risk mitigation approach.
2.1 Disaster damage to Council-owned fixed assets
· Insurance policies will be held with appropriate indemnity or replacement value cover; and
· Assets will continue to be effectively maintained.
2.2 Disaster damage leading to Third Party liability
· The employment of suitably qualified and experienced staff and robust decision making processes.
· Appropriate and relevant HBRC policy and sound technical practices for maintaining HBRC assets thereby minimising any exposure through negligence.
· An insurance policy will be held to cover this risk.
2.3 Disaster impact on Council’s Business Continuance Capability
· A Business Continuance Plan will be maintained and regularly updated which contains specific actions and ongoing requirements to help check systems to enable HBRC to continue to operate after a disaster.
2.4 Sound maintenance of infrastructure assets
· Infrastructure assets will be maintained in accordance with asset management plans. This will include an annual programme of maintenance and a regular assessment of asset condition.
· Where feasible and economic this may include improvements to increase asset resilience to damage from a natural disaster.
2.5 Use of surplus operating funds and reprioritisation of maintenance and capital works
· Following any disaster event the first call to fund the reinstatement costs of infrastructure assets will be any surplus operating funds held by the Scheme under which the assets are administered.
· The second call will be through the reprioritisation of the maintenance or capital expenditure programme for that Scheme.
· Scheme depreciation reserves will only be utilised where a depreciable asset requires replacement, in which case the difference between the depreciated value of that asset and its replacement cost can be sourced from the relevant depreciation reserve. Note that if the new asset results in an increase in the level of service provided by the Scheme, the difference between the cost of the new asset and the replacement cost of the current asset will be a cost on the Scheme.
· Only after these options have been fully assessed and funding from these sources committed, will Council agreement to funds from other financial reserves being drawn on be sought.
2.6 HBRC held financial reserves
· Financial reserves will be held to mitigate HBRC’s financial exposure to natural hazards. The following reserves will be held by HBRC
o The Wairoa District Flood Reserve
o The small schemes disaster reserve
o The Heretaunga Plains Schemes disaster reserve
o The Regional Disaster Reserve
2.7 Membership of LAPP
· HBRC will maintain its membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) and meet the requirements of LAPP.
2.8 Maintain proper planning for risk management
· In order to comply with the criteria set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, HBRC will maintain proper planning for risk management. Implementation of this policy will demonstrate this.
3. Criteria for Contributions and Withdrawals From Reserves
Criteria for contributions and withdrawals from these reserves are:
3.1 The Wairoa Flood Reserve
The reserve will be managed such that the capital purchasing power of the reserve sum, less any capital authorised to be withdrawn from the reserve by HBRC, shall be maintained by increasing the reserve each year by 2.5% from interest earned by the reserve.
The balance of interest earned by the reserve shall be used to subsidise work undertaken through the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme to manage and reduce flood risk to public and/or community infrastructure within the Wairoa District.
Council may authorise capital sums to be drawn from the reserve to undertake specific major flood mitigation or erosion protection projects within the Wairoa District or for flood recovery works in the same area.
3.2 The Small Schemes Disaster Reserve
The small schemes disaster reserve shall provide for the following flood control and drainage schemes:
· Upper Tukituki Flood control scheme
· Upper Makara flood control scheme
· Paeroa Scheme
· Porangahau flood control Scheme
· Poukawa Drainage Scheme
· Ohuia – Whakaki Drainage Scheme
· Esk River flood control Scheme
· Whirinaki Flood Control Scheme
· Maraetotara River Control Scheme
· Kopuawhara Flood Scheme
· Te Ngarue River Control Scheme
· Opoho Scheme
· Kairakau Community Scheme
The following assets within the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme:
o Tawhara Flood detention dam and outlet channel
o Tuhara Drain
o Nuhaka Railway Drain
The reserve shall be made up of all of the current Scheme disaster reserves held by each of the above Schemes. As at 30 June 2013 the combined balance was $680,768.
Each Scheme will contribute annually to the reserve in proportion to the value of Scheme assets, the vulnerability of the scheme assets (vulnerability factor) and the vulnerability of the Scheme (scheme factor). Annual contributions will be calculated as follows.
(Value of asset class) x (vulnerability factor) x (scheme factor)/1000
All Schemes with no assets, e.g. Te Ngarue and Porangahau shall contribute a fixed amount of $20 per km, x a scheme vulnerability factor, of river channel under the Scheme.
Annual contributions shall be made to the reserve as set out in Table 6 each year that the reserve balance is below the LAPP excess (i.e. currently $1,259,000). Interest earned by the reserve shall be credited to the reserve. Annual contributions may increase each year in accordance with inflation.
When the reserve balance is above the LAPP excess the Group Manager Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services may agree to a discount on the annual contribution from each scheme. No annual contributions from schemes will be made if the reserve balance is in excess of 2 times the LAPP excess. If the reserve is over 2.5 times the LAPP excess the Group Managers may agree to return money from reserve income to the Schemes.
At Council discretion individual schemes will be eligible to draw up to 100 times their annual contribution from the reserve, provided the reserve holds adequate funds.
The following costs may be eligible for payment from this Reserve.
· The cost of reinstatement of assets identified on the LAPP asset schedule, or their replacement with alternative assets that will reinstate a similar level of service provided by the original assets, less any provision held within the Scheme depreciation fund for reinstatement of that asset, up to a maximum of the LAPP excess or central government threshold, whichever is the greater.
· The cost of repair works within a scheme area (excluding district wide schemes). Eligible repair works may include channel works which improve flood flow capacity, bank protection works where this work will assist in protecting a residential dwelling (however this could be subject to a contribution from the building’s owner to recognise any private good, and may be subject to the owner providing details of other insurance claims made or received), or any other works subject to Council approval. The Reserve will not be used for the purchase of land. Where land upon which an asset has been sited is lost, the asset should be relocated.
3.3 The Heretaunga Plains Scheme Disaster Reserve
The Heretaunga Plains Schemes disaster reserve shall provide for the following flood control and drainage schemes.
· The Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers
· Napier Meeanee Drainage area
· Brookfields Awatoto Drainage area
· Pakowhai Drainage area
· Muddy Creek Drainage area
· Haumoana Drainage area
· Karamu and Tributaries Drainage area
· Raupare Twyford drainage area
· Tutaekuri-Waimate Drainage area
· Puninga Drainage area
The reserve shall be made up of all of the current Scheme disaster reserves held by each of the above Schemes. As at 30 June 2013 the combined balance was $1,799,022.
Each Scheme will contribute annually to the reserve in proportion to the value of Scheme assets, the vulnerability of the scheme assets (vulnerability factor) and the vulnerability of the Scheme (scheme factor). Annual contributions will be calculated as follows:
Value of asset class x vulnerability factor x scheme factor/1000.
Annual contributions shall be made to the reserve as set out in Table 7 at any time that the reserve balance is below the LAPP excess. (i.e. currently $1,259,000). Annual contributions may increase each year in accordance with inflation.
When the reserve balance is above the LAPP excess the Group Manager Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services may agree to a lesser amount being contributed from each scheme or a contribution from this reserve being made to the regional disaster reserve. No Scheme contributions will be made if the reserve balance is in excess of 1.5 times the LAPP excess. If the reserve is over 2.0 times the LAPP excess the Group Managers may agree to return money from the reserve income to the Schemes.
At Council discretion individual schemes will be eligible to draw from the reserve up to 100 times their annual contribution from the reserve, provided the reserve holds adequate funds.
Withdrawal from the reserve will only be considered after consideration of deferment of routine annual maintenance and programmed capital works. Any payments from the reserve shall be at the discretion of Council.
· The cost of repair works within a scheme area. Eligible repair works may include channel works which improve flood flow capacity and bank protection works, however where this work will assist in protecting a residential or commercial building this may be subject to the owner providing details of other insurance claims made or received and agreeing to an appropriate contribution, or any other works subject to Council approval.
3.4 The Regional Disaster Reserve
This reserve is to be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range of $2.75m - $3.75m and that its investments exceed $3.75m in value and some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account.
A return of 2.5% on average balance held by the reserve during the year will accrue as an increase in the value of the reserve, when the Reserve has a value in excess of $3M. The earnings in excess of the 2.5% per annum will be credited to Council’s general funding operating account.
The regional disaster reserve may, at Council discretion, provide for the following.
a. The cost of responding to and managing an event. This could include:
· Unbudgeted staff time
· Plant and equipment hire including helicopters
· Employment of unbudgeted external resource to support staff in the response.
b. The cost of reinstatement of any uninsured assets. This includes recreational assets that are not part of a flood protection and drainage Scheme, i.e. pathways and associated assets that are not constructed on a stopbank, and assets within open space areas.
c. Any difference between the deductable (excess) on any insurance or LAPP policy and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance, which is unable to be funded through Scheme disaster Reserve or other funds.
d. Any unfunded reinstatement costs above the excess of any insurance policy and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance because central government determines that HBRC is not eligible for central government assistance because the disaster does not trigger the criteria set out in the Guide to the National Civil Defence Plan, and/or LAPP is unable to provide cover for whatever reason.
e. The possibility of the cost of reinstating the level of service provided by the assets costs considerably more than their estimated replacement or optimised replacement value, and central government and/or HBRC’s insurers refuse to cover a portion of that cost.
f. The cost of any works that are considered betterment but are necessary to reinstate community protection, or because the community demands a higher level of protection.
g. Liability as a member of LAPP in the event that the LAPP fund is exhausted.
4. Criteria for the Build Up, Use and Maintenance of Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves
· Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.
· All efforts will be made to maximise any disaster recovery contributions from Central Government or any other sources.
5. Provision to Meet Disaster Damage Insurance Excesses and Commitments
5.1 Regional Disaster Reserve
The required reserve will be managed in accordance with HBRC’s investment policies.
5.2 Flood and Drainage Schemes
The Group Manager, Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services have delegated authority to manage the Small Scheme disaster reserve and the Heretaunga Plains Scheme Disaster reserve in accordance with HBRC’s investment policy.
6. Frequency of Disaster Damage Risk Management Reviews
Reviews will be carried out at least once every six years.
Small Schemes Disaster Reserve and Balances
Heretaunga Plains Disaster Reserve and Balances
APPENDIX 1 - POSSIBLE LEVELS OF DAMAGE
1. The possible levels of damage in a range of return period flood events in the Heretaunga Plains Rivers are set out in Table 1. Note: These are based on estimates of potential damage as assessed by HBRC engineering and asset management teams. These must be considered as rough order estimates as there is no dataset of damage available. It should also be noted that reinstatement costs could be significantly greater than the scheduled value of assets damaged or destroyed. Reinstatement costs that are 2 to 3 times the replacement value under normal conditions appear to be common post disaster (ref 2004 central North Island floods and Canterbury earthquakes).
Table 1 Expected damage - flooding
Description of potential damage
· Rivers remain in channels
· Ngaruroro River edge protection 30% damage
· Other river (Tutaekuri and Lower Tukituki) edge protection 15 % damage
· Ngaruroro River stopbank 5% damage
· Other river stopbanks 2.5% damage
· Drains incur minor (1%) damage mainly some bank slumping and blocking and silting of culverts.
· Upper Tukituki Scheme incurs 5% damage as a result of higher river flows
$5,865,722
$3,382,877
$852,635
$375,803
$1,993,056
$12,712,632
· Ngaruroro breaches in one location and discharges into Karamu catchment area
· Ngaruroro River edge protection 40% damage
· Other river edge protection 20% damage
· Ngaruroro River breach requires repair. Total damage 10%
· Other river stopbanks 5% damage
· Drains incur some damage 1% as for 100 year event but increased damage 5% in Karamu catchment (siltation and bank slumping)
· Upper Tukituki, Esk and Whirinaki schemes incur 10% damage as a result of high flows.
$7,820,963
$4,510,502
$1,705,270
$751,606
$3,986,112
$19,584,689
· Ngaruroro River breaches in one location but sustained high flows result in widespread damage. Breach discharges into the Karamu catchment. No other stopbanks are breached.
· Ngaruroro River edge protection 45% damage
· Other river edge protection 25% damage
· Ngaruroro River breach requires repair. Total damage 15%
· Other river stopbanks 10% damage
· Drains incur some damage 5% but increased damage 10% in Karamu catchment
· Upper Tukituki, Esk and Whirinaki schemes incur 20% damage as a result of high flows.
· Other schemes incur 20% damage as a result of widespread rainfall
$8,798,583
$5,638,128
$2,557,905
$1,503,213
$1,763,871
$7,972,223
$1,758,373
$30,245,809
· Both Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri river stopbanks are breached. Discharges from Ngaruroro breach affect Karamu and Twyford catchment. Discharge for Tutaekuri affects the Tutaekuri Waimate catchment
· Damage to Ngaruroro edge protection is 70%
· Other river edge protection is 50%
· Damage to Ngaruroro stopbanks is 30%
· Other rivers stopbanks is 20%
· Drains incur 10% damage except for 20% in Karamu, Twyford and Tutaekuri Waimate
· Upper Tukituki, Esk and Whirinaki schemes incur 30% damage as a result of high flows
· Other schemes incur 30% damage as a result of widespread rainfall
$13,686,684
$11,276,256
$5,115,810
$3,006,426
$3,527,745
$11,958,335
$2,637,559
$51,589,085
Greater than 1000 year event
· There is always a risk of a greater than 1000 year event. This could be expected to result in widespread damage throughout the east coast of the North Island
Table 2 Infrastructure assets are also vulnerable to other natural hazard events including:
Potential damage and extent
Return period and potential consequences
All assets on or near the coast are at risk from a tsunami. This includes sea groynes, sea exclusion banks, stopbanks and other river bank protection work along reaches of rivers near the coast, drains, pump stations and other structures close to the coast.
500 years for a 5m wave from distance source - expect severe environmental and infrastructural damage along coastline.
While some sediment deposition is likely, only a very major event is likely to have an impact on most assets. Assets most at risk from smaller events are pump stations where damage to pumps and electrical systems is possible. In addition it is possible that channel capacity may be reduced and live tree edge protection dies.
1000 years for the region to be covered with between 5 – 100 mm of ash over the course of 3 weeks from an eruption of Mount Ruapehu. – expect damage to mechanical and electrical assets and equipment.
Lateral spread of stopbanks, river and drain edges is likely to result in a significant repair cost following a major earthquake. In addition damage to fixed assets e.g. pump stations, and other structures is also possible. Land movement triggered by an earthquake may result in significant works such as regrading of drains, a requirement to pump areas currently drained through gravity, and an increase in the height of stopbanks.
740 years for a strong earthquake of the Poukawa fault near Bridge Pa causing shaking of MMIX (9). – expect substantial damage to infrastructure.
Damage to edge protection and individual fixed assets as a result of wild fire is possible.
10 years for a major fire in extreme drought conditions on rural-urban interface. – expect limited damage to live tree edge protection.
2. Of these a severe earthquake is likely to be the most damaging however staff believe that the maximum exposure is from a significant flood event. Repair work following any of these events would however need to be undertaken with due haste as the damage may result in an increased flood risk.
Table 3 Asset value by asset description
$ x 1,000
Groynes (including concrete, rope and rail and sea groynes)
Live tree edge protection
Flood detention dams
Other (structures, culverts and pipelines, etc.)
Soil conservation planting
Table 4 – Asset value by Scheme
Heretaunga Plains - Drains
Ohuia - Whakaki
Te Ngarue
Wairoa Rivers and Streams
SUBJECT: Coastal Strategy
1. Projections by climate scientists are that with continued global warming the average level of the sea will rise by about 1m by 2100. A range of 0.9 to 1.3m by 2100 is predicted by Komar. There is also evidence that this rise will be accompanied by increases in the intensity of storms and the heights of their generated waves. Coasts are therefore expected to face erosive forces over the next 100 years that are substantially higher than those experienced over the past 100 years. This will be accompanied by an increase in the frequency of waves overtopping the beach crest and inundating land close to the coast.
2. These projections are made in an assessment of coastal hazard risks which has been completed by Emeritus Professor Paul D Komar and Erica Harris in their report “Global Climate and Barrier Beach Responses”. The report has already been provided to Councillors for their information.
3. The Hawke’s Bay coastline between Clifton and Tangoio is defined by a gravel barrier ridge which provides a vital defence from the sea. Without it large areas of Napier City and some of Hastings District would be regularly inundated and potentially be uninhabitable.
4. The gravel barrier ridge is therefore an essential asset to Hawke’s Bay. Activity affecting any part of the gravel barrier ridge can potentially affect another part. The impacts of climate change will mean that this asset is under increasing pressure in the future. Technology is now available which can assist us better understand coastal processes and associated risks affecting the coastal environment including the gravel barrier ridge and identify approaches that if implemented could either extend the length of time that the gravel barrier ridge continues to protect Hawke’s Bay, or provide robust direction for an alternative engineering or planning response.
5. The concept of a multi agency strategy for managing the coast was proposed at a meeting of Hawke’s Bay’s local government agencies in November 2013, where Paul Komar presented the key findings of his report.
6. This paper formalises the proposal for a coastal strategy for the long term management of the coast and mitigation of risks between Tangoio and Clifton. A draft scope for this strategy is attached for discussion.
7. The paper proposes technical and governance structures to assist and oversee the development of this strategy.
8. The report “Global Climate and Barrier Beach Responses” is referred to as the Komar Report throughout this document. This report was commissioned by HBRC to:
8.1. Review the potential impacts of climate change on the coastal environment as an initial step in reviewing the region’s coastal hazards.
8.2. To broadly consider the sustainability of current coastal sediment extraction along the coast.
8.3. To set the scene to allow consideration of long term options for the Hawke’s Bay coast.
9. Resource consents for the extraction of gravel from the coast at Awatoto and Napier’s main beach expire in 2017. The Komar report states that these two activities are unsustainable and should be stopped. Extraction at Napier’s main beach is for the Westshore renourishment project. Alternative sources of material or an alternative mitigation approach will need to be found.
10. Overtopping of the gravel barrier ridge has already occurred in the Haumoana / Clive area and the frequency of overtopping events is likely to increase in the future as will their extent (length of beach over which this occurs). Long term overtopping of the gravel barrier ridge protecting Napier is a risk, particularly in the vicinity of Awatoto.
11. Coastal hazards have the potential to cause significant community disruption and cost.
12. Some of the key findings of the Komar report are:
12.1. With continued global warming the average level of the sea will rise by about 1 metre by the end of the 21st century, and the intensities of storms and the heights of their generated waves will also increase.
12.2. It is doubtful that the gravel barrier ridge will remain stable. The current sea exclusion banks protecting the Haumoana, Clive and East Clive area from inundation will not be adequate to prevent inundation from the sea.
12.3. By the year 2100 maximum total water levels (TWL) (the sum of the measured tide and calculated wave runup levels) in the Haumoana littoral cell (Clifton to Port of Napier) are predicted to be 1.5m above present day levels, and 2.0m in the Bayview littoral cell (Port of Napier to Tangoio). This means that overtopping and inundation can be expected for the Napier gravel barrier ridge from about Kenny Road (Golf Links) south in an extreme event. A similar situation exists with the Bay View Littoral cell although the gravel barrier ridge is at a higher elevation.
12.4. Extreme events (with an occurrence interval longer than 100 years) are predicted to result in wave runup some 2 metres higher than TWL for 2100. Such events have the potential to overtop the gravel barrier ridge along the entire length of the Haumoana cell’s shore (including impacting Napier CDB), and at least the southern half of the Bay View cell shore. There is a real possibility of such an event occurring over the next 100 years.
12.5. Climate change will change the sediment budgets for the littoral cells resulting in enhanced erosion of the gravel barrier ridges. Given this scenario it does not make sense to continue with mining of gravel at Awatoto (commercially by Winstones) and Pacific Beach (for Westshore renourishment). Cessation of the mining operations would improve the present and future integrity of the barrier ridge to resist increased storm-wave energies.
13. It is proposed that a strategy be developed to provide a long term vision for the coast, and what is required now and in the future to most cost effectively achieve that vision.
14. The strategy development process will involve quantification of the likelihood of occurrence and potential consequences of a variety of natural hazard events in the coastal environment, so that the risk (both likelihood and consequences) can be determined and options for mitigation of the risks can be explored.
15. This strategy will ultimately need to fully consider a range of possible management and mitigation options and costs including:
15.1 Avoidance
15.2 Retreat using either engineering or planning approaches
15.3 Soft gravel barrier ridge erosion mitigation. e.g. re-nourishment
15.4 Hard gravel barrier ridge erosion mitigation
15.5 Mitigation of sea inundation and tsunami hazards
16. The strategy will be as clear as possible about the collective aims of the Hawke’s Bay community for this coast and provide a framework within which the feasibility of options and opportunities can be tested and prioritised. This will enable management and mitigation effort to be commenced in a coordinated and collaborative way resulting in the Hawke’s Bay community being prepared for the potential impacts of the coastal hazards.
17. A similar approach could be developed for the region’s northern and southern coasts, however the highest risks are associated with the coast between Clifton and Tangoio. The process for developing the strategy for the Clifton to Tangoio coast should be adaptable for these other areas. Staff will quantify the resource requirements for this work so that provision into the draft LTP 2015/25 can be considered.
Current Coastal Issues
18. Westshore – Renourishment at Westshore has held the coast seaward of where it was in 1986 along most of the Westshore foreshore. Renourishment material has for the last 20 years or so been sourced from the Napier foreshore. The resource consent for this extraction expires in 2017. The Komar report identifies that this is unsustainable and therefore another source of material or an alternative approach to mitigating the impacts of erosion must be identified.
19. Napier foreshore – The integrity of the Napier gravel barrier ridge is imperative for the security of Napier CBD and lower lying suburbs. Identification of threats to its integrity in the long term and steps that can be taken to cost effectively mitigate or minimise those threats now are important to Napier’s long term future.
20. Awatoto – Winstone aggregates holds a resource consent to extract 30,000m3 of sediment from the Awatoto foreshore annually. This consent expires in 2017. The Komar report highlights that ongoing extraction from this site is unsustainable. HBRC are discussing future options with the company. The beach crest at Awatoto is lower than the beach crest protecting Napier CBD. There is therefore a higher risk of overtopping of this gravel barrier ridge with the potential to impact the Awatoto industrial area and the Napier sewerage treatment plant.
21. East Clive – The East Clive and Clive communities are protected from sea inundation from a sea exclusion bank which joins with the stopbanks on the Ngaruroro and Tukituki Rivers. In 1974 a heavy sea event flooded land in this area after breaching the original sea exclusion bank. The current sea exclusion bank will over time become more susceptible to breaching if the barrier beach is weakened. Two groyne structures were constructed as part of this project to help maintain the integrity of the gravel barrier ridge. These groynes require ongoing maintenance and their long term future needs to be considered in the light of sea level rise. The Hastings sewerage treatment plant is situated immediately on the landward side of this sea exclusion bank. Outfall structures in the vicinity of the gravel barrier ridge are also at risk. Inundation of this area could impact significantly on the operation of the Hastings sewerage treatment Plant.
22. River mouths – Tūtaekuri, Ngaruroro and Tukituki are major rivers that discharge into Hawke Bay. In addition, the Maraetotara River, Ahuriri Estuary, Esk River and Te Ngarue and Pakuratahi Streams discharge into Hawke Bay. Climate change is predicted to result in increased peak flood flows in the region’s rivers. Sea level rise will also impact on these waterways. A possible impact is a reduction in gravel getting to the coast. Additional flood protection is an option to reduce the possibility of flooding from these.
23. Haumoana and Te Awanga – Both Haumoana and Te Awanga are at risk from inundation from the sea, Haumoana particularly so. The 18 properties close to the sea along East Road have protected their properties with a range of coastal defence structures. These block some littoral transport of sediment to the beach to the north of these properties which will over time adversely impact on the integrity of the gravel barrier ridge protecting Haumoana. The risk of inundation of Haumoana is therefore increasing.
24. Clifton – The Clifton camping ground is currently under threat from coastal erosion.
25. Sediment supply and transport - There is a littoral drift of beach sediment from South to North along the coast. Any mitigation measures at one location that stops or reduces this littoral drift, or the supply of sediment, potentially has impacts to other parts of the beach. Komar also highlights the impact of sediment extraction to the south of the Awatoto site.
26. The strategy will need to consider each of these issues and how they relate to one another, as well as consider other potential issues that may arise along the whole of the coast in question.
27. As this project will involve Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils, and run over several years, it is proposed that a governance structure for the project follows the model used for the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Study (HPUDS).
28. HPUDS was overseen by a governance group established as a Joint Committee with two elected members from each of Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and included two Iwi representatives.
29. Staff have held initial discussions with representatives from Mana Ahuriri Inc, He Toa Takitini, and Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust regarding this issue. He Toa Takitini area of interest includes the coast south of the Ngaruroro River mouth. Mana Ahuriri Inc area of interest is north of the Ngaruroro River mouth to the mouth of the Pakuratahi and Te Ngarue Streams, and Maungharuru Tangitū Trust area of interest is the northern area of the coast covered by this strategy. All parties are interested in being involved. Accordingly it is proposed that further discussions be held with each organisation seeking their agreement to participate in the strategy development, and to nominate a representative from each organisation to sit on the Joint Committee to oversee the project.
30. The Joint Committee will be supported by a technical advisory group (TAG) of senior technical advisors (staff and consultants) throughout the process. The Joint Committee would be administered by HBRC staff.
31. It is proposed that the governance group develop and agree terms of reference for themselves and the TAG group.
32. Briefing papers similar to this will be considered by Napier City Council and Hastings District Council during April/May 2014.
Stakeholder and interest group involvement
33. Stakeholders and interest groups must be engaged in the strategy development process. It is recommended that regular meetings be held with stakeholders and interest groups. Stakeholders will include:
· Port of Napier Ltd
· Iwi groups and hapu with an interest in the coast
· Winstone Aggregates
· The Haumoana WoW Group
· Clifton and Te Awanga motor Camps
· The Westshore Residents and Development association.
· Residents of East Clive
· NZTA
34. It is proposed that the stakeholder engagement process is considered and agreed through the governance group.
35. The strategy development process may take three years or more as many of the issues to be considered will be complex and may require considerable additional investigation or research to understand them sufficiently to enable a robust assessment of options and opportunities to be considered.
36. The Governance Group shall consider and agree the scope and the resources available and determine a timeline for the project. This may include further resourcing to be provided through Member Councils respective long term plans.
37. After discussion with senior staff from Napier City Council and Hastings District Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) commissioned Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T&T) to prepare a scoping document to initiate the development of a strategy.
38. This report suggests a three stage approach, and outlines the proposed scope for Stages 1 and 2. The third stage will be to develop a strategy by considering a range of options and opportunities for the management and/or mitigation of the risks. The scope for this part of the project will be established once stages 1 and 2 are well advanced.
39. It should be noted that this document suggests that hazards in addition to those highlighted by the Komar report (e.g. tsunami) should also be considered as part of the determination of the scope of the project.
40. A copy of this document appended to this paper for Councillor information. It is intended that this paper be considered by the Joint Committee as part of their formulation of the scope of the project.
Strategy Development Costs
41. It is proposed that HBRC will meet the cost of consultant (Tonkin and Taylor) input to work through Stage 1 of the proposal. This will be funded within existing budgets. HBRC can also meet some costs associated with stage 2 from existing budgets however it is too early to determine whether or not budget provision will be adequate to complete stage 2. It is expected that the costs of input from other organisations lie where they fall for these two stages.
42. Stage 3 is likely to require additional investigations and studies to enable alternative options and opportunities to be assessed. The scope of Stage 3 can only be developed once stage 1 and 2 are substantially advanced. It is therefore not possible at this stage to provide an estimated cost for the project.
43. Provision will need to be included in the LTP’s of the Member councils for the strategy development. It is envisaged that the Strategy development process will involve external input to assess a range of options and opportunities for the management of the aspects of the coast.
Potential outcome from the strategy
44. The Strategy will determine the desired form of the coast in the long term taking into account the hazards that it will be exposed to, pressure associated with human habitation on land adjacent to the coast, and affordability to the community; and what policy, planning and physical work is required to achieve that. It will also prioritise various actions and/or activities.
45. 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:
45.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
45.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
45.3. The decision to progress stage 3 of the strategy development may fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance. It is anticipated that the public would be consulted on this issue through the development of an annual plan or long term plan.
45.4. The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke’s Bay community and particularly those with interests within the coastal environment.
45.5. A range of options will be considered through the development of the strategy.
45.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
45.7. 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.
1. Receives the report “Global Climate and Barrier Beach Responses” authored by Emeritus Professor Paul D Komar and Erica Harris.
2. Receives the proposal entitled Hawke’s Bay Coastal Strategy prepared by Tonkin and Taylor and notes that staff are proposing that this paper be considered by the Joint Committee as part of their formulation of the scope of the project.
3. Nominates Councillor ________________ and Councillor ______________ as the HBRC representatives on the Joint Committee
4. 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.
5. Agrees to work with in collaboration with Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Treaty of Waitangi settlement groups with mana whenua mandate over the portion of coast being considered, on the development of a strategy for the management of the coast between Clifton and Tangoio.
6. Agrees that the project will be governed by a Joint Committee made up of 2 elected members from each of Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils and up to three Iwi representatives.
7. Agrees to continue discussions with He Toa Takitini, Mana Ahuriri Inc, and Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust, seeking their agreement to participate in the Strategy development process and nominate one representative from each organisation to sit on the Joint Committee to oversee the project.
8. Agrees that the Joint Committee will be delegated the authority to determine its terms of Reference, the Terms of Reference for a Technical Advisory Group, and the scope and timeline for the project, taking into account the size of the project and the resource available to it.
9. Notes that resourcing requirements for HBRC’s involvement in the development of the Strategy will be included in the draft LTP 2015-25.
10. Appoints Councillor ________________ and Councillor ______________ as the HBRC representatives on the Joint Committee.
Global Climate Change & Barrier Beach Responses
Tonkin & Taylor Coastal Strategy - Scoping Study
SUBJECT: Review of Regional Pest Management Plans
1. HBRC involvement in pest management is set out in the Regional Pest Management Strategy (this covers both pest plants and pest animals), and the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy (which covers pests which have the potential to infest abandoned pip and stone fruit orchards).
2. The current Regional Pest Management Strategy and Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy both expire in March 2018.
3. The Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 (the Act) requires that regional councils provide leadership regionally on a range of Biosecurity matters. This will be in accordance with National Policy Direction required by the Act to be provided by the Minister.
4. Staff have been informed that this National Policy Direction (NPD) may be published later this calendar year. That Direction will provide a timeframe within which existing Strategies or Plans are required to be reviewed to make them are consistent with the NPD. The Act refers to Pest Management Plans, whereas the Biosecurity Act 2003 referred to Pest Management Strategies. Accordingly documents prepared under the Act will be Plans.
5. Once the NPD has been approved by the Governor General and gazetted in accordance with the Act, staff will review its contents and propose a course of action to Council.
6. The current Regional Pest Management Strategies set out Council’s objectives for the management and control of a number of pest species, and how that work is funded. If Council wishes to make significant changes to this programme then it will need to consider the implications of this both on existing biosecurity programmes and other work and priorities of Council.
7. This may be best achieved by seeking public comment on future biosecurity priorities through an initial non statutory discussion document to encourage sufficient feedback to enable Council to determine an appropriate level of resourcing for inclusion into the draft Long Term Plan 2015/25, prior to completing the review after the National Policy Direction is gazetted.
8. This report:
8.1. Briefly reviews the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 and the potential changes to the current HBRC pest management programme that could result from the Act.
8.2. Updates Council on the work already being undertaken in anticipation of the gazetting of the National Policy Direction and the review of current Strategies.
8.3. Suggests the formation of a Councillor working group to consider possible changes in the current HBRC biosecurity programme resulting from the Act and National Policy Direction, and the programme and scope for the review of HBRC Pest Management Plans.
9. Changes included in the Act that impact on HBRC include:
9.1. The ability to bind the Crown to regional pest programmes as a good neighbour. The detail of how the Crown could be bound to pest management plans is to be contained in National Policy Direction.
9.2. Previously Council involvement in pest management activities under the Biosecurity Act 2003 has been voluntary and subject to agreement from the community. The Act requires HBRC to provide leadership in activities that prevent, reduce, or eliminate adverse effects from harmful organisms that are present in New Zealand (pest management) in its region.
9.3. Specifically it states that the ways in which the regional council provides leadership in the region include:
9.3.1. promoting the alignment of pest management in the region:
9.3.2. facilitating the development and alignment of regional pest management plans and regional pathway management plans in the region:
9.3.3. promoting public support for pest management:
9.3.4. facilitating communication and co-operation among those involved in pest management to enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of programmes.
9.4. New areas including marine biosecurity.
Key issues for consideration as part of a review
10. Three key nationally led initiatives; Government Industry Agreements [GIA]; the National Biosecurity Capability Network and National surveillance are discussed below. HBRC needs to consider how to integrate each of these initiatives into its role under the Act.
10.1 The essence of GIA is to create a more integrated biosecurity system for NZ by engaging key industry groups into incursion risk readiness, response and cost sharing with Central government. These agreements are generally targeted at industry sectors that are significant export earners for NZ. Each GIA is a formal deed between central government and an industry group and is supported by an operational plan.
10.2 Ministry of Primary Industries leads a programme which targets a number of surveillance activities for high risk pests that could have significant adverse impacts on NZs economy or environment. The National Biosecurity Capability Network is a Central Government led initiative to ensure that the resources and capability for incursion responses are available and prepared across NZ. It takes a whole of NZ, whole of system approach to the resources and capability preparedness for incursion responses from “Foot and Mouth” scale to smaller incursions.
11. In addition staff have been discussing possible regional initiatives to incursion risk reduction and biosecurity management with industry groups, particularly the Horticulture/ Pipfruit and viticulture sectors. A regional biosecurity coordination forum has been mooted. To be successful this forum will need to consider the regional context including regional biosecurity pathways such as Port of Napier and Hawke’s Bay Airport.
Work underway in anticipation of a review
12. Staff have been working on a number of initiatives that they expect will feed into a future review. These include:
12.1. Engagement with key stakeholders such as DOC, and the Horticulture and Pipfruit sector on biosecurity matters.
12.2. Engaging consultants to review existing cost benefit analysis for pests included in the current Strategies to confirm they remain robust and are in accordance with the Act.
12.3. Developing an initial draft of the discussion document covering possible changes and matters for consultation as a preliminary step in the review of the current Strategies.
13. It is envisaged that the discussion document will cover topics outlined below.
14. Regional leadership – The current Strategies have been based substantially on key agricultural, environmental or human health pest plants and animals, for example possums, rabbits, Chilean needlegrass, Old Man’s Beard and Privet. HBRC have achieved some significant successes over the past two decades such as the Possum Control Area programme which now manages possum impacts very effectively across more than 500,000 ha. However new issues such as pest pathway management, marine biosecurity will need to be considered as part of HBRCs leadership role under the Act. These issues are new and potentially complex requiring different management approaches, staff expertise, and will need to be resourced. Initial public views on these issues will assist in the review of the Plans.
15. Marine pest management roles – Under the Act and National Policy Direction HBRC may be required to take a lead role in determining how to manage marine pest species that are already in NZ waters, but not yet impacting on our coastal environment. HBRC current Strategies do not include the marine environment.
16. Argentine ants have been in the region for over ten years. Extensive work has been done by HBRC to determine their extent. This work has determined that approximately 5000 mainly urban domestic residential properties have some level of Argentine ant infestation. They are expected to spread in the future. Their long term impacts are expected to be mainly on urban lifestyles with lesser impacts on biodiversity and economic values. Staff have engaged recognised Australasian experts to advise what the likely impacts are and what the most appropriate long term Argentine ant management methods for Hawke’s Bay may be. Advice to date is that eradication of is not a realistic option.
17. Goats are a “site specific” pest within the current Regional Pest Management Strategy. Approximately five years ago a regional goat stakeholder group was set up to consider if there was a more effective way of managing goats within the region to achieve better environmental and economic outcomes. This group included representatives from 10-12 relevant organisations with an interest in goat management. The group met twice yearly over a three year period and agreed a vision that acknowledged both the economic benefits and environmental impacts of goats. The challenge of effectively regulating has been discussed within the group. No changes to the regulatory framework at the last review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy were proposed as a result of the group’s activities.
18. A specific initiative from the group is being trialled in the Tutira/ Managaharuru area. “Coordinated Management Areas” for goats will determine if more effective coordination of all the stakeholders in a given area will result in a satisfactory outcome for all parties. This trial is in its second year. Initial results will be available within the next 5-6 months.
19. HBRC annual expenditure on animal pests is approx $1.8m and on plant pests is approx $750k. In addition HBRC financially supports the Hawke’s Bay programme of TBFree NZ at a cost of approx $700k per year (approx 10% of the cost of the vector control programme). The majority (70% for animal pests and the TBfree contribution and 60% for plant pests) of this funding is sourced from targeted rates on properties over 4 ha in area, with the balance being funded from general funds.
20. Over the coming months Council will be considering their future strategy and priorities. This will feed into the draft long term plan 2015/25. Future biosecurity resource requirements will need to be considered alongside other priorities as part of this process.
21. The proposed discussion document could include a range of specific issues to encourage public discussion as an initial stage to the review of the Regional Pest Management Plan. These include:
21.1 Privet - A significant investment is made by HBRC into privet control annually to reduce the impacts of privet on human health. A recent joint trial with Waikato Regional Council using blood tests to determine whether privet pollen is the actual cause of “privet” related complaints has shown that less than 5% of complaints test positive for privet pollen. This brings into question the ongoing investment in privet control. An option to seek public comment on could be to require those who request privet control to get a doctor’s certificate indicating that it is likely that Privet is the source of their health related complaint.
21.2 Feral cats, stoats and ferrets (mustelids) – A trial has commenced to determine the feasibility of controlling Feral cats, and mustelids across large areas of the rural part of the region. The Cape to City trial first stage has been approved by Council. Public comment on the wider control of these pests, subject to the feasibility of control being proven, could be sought.
20. It is proposed that an initial non statutory discussion document as a first stage to the Pest Management Plan review process is initiated early in the 2014/15 financial year. This timing would allow resources necessary to implement initial thinking on potential biosecurity programme changes to be included into draft Long Term Plan 2015/25 (LTP).
21. There would be benefit in including possible implications of the National Policy Direction in the review. However the likely time of gazetting this National Policy Direction is uncertain. Actual implications may therefore be unclear until the development of the draft long term plan 2015/25 is well advanced.
22. Staff propose a working group of 3-5 councillors as a forum to work through the issues outlined in this briefing paper, and to determine a programme and scope for reviewing the Pest Management plans.
23. 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:
23.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
23.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.
23.4. No persons affected by this decision.
23.5. Options that have been considered are set out in this briefing paper.
23.7. 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.
1. Receives this report.
2. Nominates the following Councillors to form a working group to assist staff in:
2.1. Establishing a timeline and scope for reviewing the regional pest management plans, and
2.2. Completing the review process.
Councillors _________________, ______________, ________________, ______________, and _______________.
4. Establishes a working group of 3-5 Councillors to assist staff in:
4.1. Establishing a timeline and scope for reviewing the regional pest management plans, and
4.2. Completing the review process.
5. Appoints the following Councillors to the working group
Councillor ____________
SUBJECT: Nimmo-Bell Alternative Investments Report
1. At the Regional Council meeting on Wednesday 29 January 2014, Councillors accepted an offer of service from Nimmo-Bell and Company Limited (Nimmo-Bell) to undertake an independent review identifying and evaluating alternative investment opportunities to the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS). Nimmo-Bell has now completed this review and present it for the Council’s consideration.
2. The Council is required by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to identify any alternative investments that meet its financial and economic development investment objectives and evaluate their likely financial, economic and community impacts in comparison with the projected financial, economic and community impacts of investing in the RWSS.
3. According to the terms of reference published on 9 January 2014, Nimmo-Bell were required to undertake the following work and report on:
3.1. Brief overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the Hawke’s Bay regional economy.
3.2. Brief overview of the Council’s current investment portfolio and the significance of portfolio revenue to overall Council income which is used to deliver services and other community outcomes.
3.3. Identify potential alternative investments to RWSS.
3.4. Evaluate the economic impact of identified alternative investments, if the Council invested in them, using a cost-benefit methodology.
3.5. Evaluate the impact of identified alternative investments on the Council’s capacity to discharge its present and future statutory obligations.
3.6. In the event an alternative investment impacts on land or a body of water, ensure the evaluation takes into account the culture and traditions of Maori – section 77(c) LGA.
3.7. Review expected economic impacts of the RWSS for the nation and the region as a whole and compare the economic impacts of identified alternative investments with those of the RWSS.
3.8. Conclude with a view about whether or not the RWSS is the best investment for HBRC in terms of projected economic returns and community outcomes as compared to identified alternatives.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Nimmo-Bell Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Investments” report.
Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Scheme: Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Investments
SUBJECT: National Horticultural Field Days
1. The purpose of this item is to give a current view of Council’s relationship and commitment to the National Horticultural Field Day event, to be held on Thursday 5th June 2014 at Hawke’s Bay Showgrounds.
2. National Horticultural Field Day is an annual event, owned and organised by Hawke’s Bay A & P Society, supported by Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers Association and sponsored by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.
3. The event is an appropriate vehicle for business, sector and grower relationships, with relevance to HBRC’s work in catchment planning, land use management and best practice implementation.
4. The event was originated in part by HBRC. It has evolved from an early focus on the skills and services associated with maintaining lifestyle blocks (2004) to a broader field day (2011), more recently incorporating the horticultural sector’s ICE Expo (2012), to become a large scale industry-focused event for business-to-business interaction.
5. The event is not marketed to the general public. It is now aimed at small growers, large businesses, and medium to large corporate organisations.
6. In 2013, the one-day event was supported by a trade presence of 50 exhibitors. It includes a full-day Seminar Series commencing with a keynote breakfast. There are separate sessions for sector, industry, cadets and students, with competitions including the Young Fruitgrower of the Year, NZ Hydralada Competition and NZ Forklift Competition.
7. The most significant development for the 2014 event is the change in name
to National Horticultural Field Day – from Eastern Horticultural Field Day.
8. This year the organisers also welcome Massey University as a major partner, in line with the ongoing aim to grow and strengthen the event.
9. National Horticultural Field Day strives to be innovative, forward thinking, committed to excellence and a showcase for industry partnerships.
10. The primary objective for 2014 is to grow the value and participation for processed vegetable growers, with the intention to grow the event each year anticipating the inclusion of the avocado, kiwifruit, berryfruit and viticulture sectors.
11. In 2014, Massey University will assist to source a world class Seminar Series speaker, promote technology and information transfer through speaker provision, and maintain a strong educational component – raising the profile for skills-based careers in science and technology in the Horticulture sector.
12. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s annual sponsorship investment is $10,000 + GST, with staff time given to the event steering group, keynote speaking opportunities and maintaining a strong resource management and knowledge flavour in the event.
13. Councillors have attended past events, showing interest in the Seminar Series breakfast. A Seminar Series programme will be circulated as it becomes available.
The event website is www.nationalhort.co.nz.
SUBJECT: Science Reports April 2014 Update
Karamu Characterisation Report
1. This report was compiled by our environmental scientists to characterize the water quality, quantity and ecology of Karamu streams, including the groundwater aquifers of the Heretaunga Plains. Data are reported up to June 2011. The report which will be available to the public following this meeting is structured by sub-catchment, together with a synthesis of emerging patterns for the broader catchment (Section 2). Establishing what we already know about the Karamu Catchment was an important precursor to the more detailed investigations that are now under way for the Greater Heretaunga plan change.
2. The Heretaunga Plains represent one of the most productive horticultural areas in New Zealand. Water resources in the Karamu Catchment have been developed for a variety of land uses, including orchards, crops, industry and town supply.
3. Groundwater is the predominant water resource, with fewer resource consents for taking surface water directly from streams (4,377,028 m³/wk groundwater allocation; 345,945 m³/wk surface water allocation, as at May 2011). The Heretaunga groundwater aquifer is recharged, in part, by flow losses from the lower Ngaruroro River. Springs arise at the transition between the unconfined and confined aquifers, and these springs feed Karamu tributaries (e.g. Irongate Stream, Raupare Stream). Water permit records indicate a large increase in groundwater use through the 1980’s. Some monitoring wells have experienced increased seasonal variation in water levels. No change was detected in the long-term winter groundwater level.
4. Water quality of the Karamu may be categorised as degraded. A high proportion of nutrient results (nitrogen and phosphorus) exceeded the recommended regional and national guideline values for lowland rivers and streams. The composition of stream macroinvertebrate communities also indicate poor water quality. The Macroinvertebrate Community Index scores for the Karamu catchment were among the lowest observed in the Hawke’s Bay region. Results from eight sites had very poor Macroinvertebrate Community Index scores (<60), including the Awanui, Karewarewa, Poukawa, and Ruahapia. The sites with better MCI values (closer to model predictions) included headwaters of the Raupare Stream, Paritua Stream and Havelock North streams (Mangarau, Karituwhenua).
5. Most New Zealand freshwater fish spend part of their life-cycle at sea. The close proximity of the Karamu sub-catchments to the sea maximises the number of species that should have migratory access. A project to document potential barriers to fish passage was initiated in 2008, and this located 31 structures in the Karamu catchment that have the potential to restrict fish passage.
6. The Stream Ecological Valuation method uses 31 variables to assess potential stressors of stream life. Stressors identified by the SEV process at sites with very poor MCI scores (e.g. Poukawa, Awanui, Karewarewa) included: elevated nutrient concentrations, straightened channels, limited riparian shade, nuisance plant proliferation, stock access and low flows. Riparian enhancement was predicted to offer the greatest ecological benefit.
1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Karamu Characterisation” Report
1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 5 February and 1 April 2014.
Statutory Advocay Update
Statutory Advocay Map
· Public notice has been given by the High Court that an application has been made. Staff are currently reviewing the application to determine if it is necessary for HBRC to join the High Court proceedings.
· Deadline for joining High Court proceedings is 17 February 2014.
· NCC has notified Plan Change 10. Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council.
· Submissions close on Friday 14 February 2014.
· Previously informal comments were made by staff on draft content relating to HPUDS and RPS Change 4.
· HDC has notified the Proposed Hastings District Plan. Staff are currently working through the document to identify areas that may require a submission from Regional Council.
· Previously HDC released a Draft District Plan Review on which the Regional Council provided comments. Various informal comments were made by staff on draft content, particularly relating to natural hazards, HPUDS and RPS Change4, riparian management.