MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL TELEPHONE (0064) 3 520 7400 PO BOX 443 FACSIMILE (0064) 3 520 7496 BLENHEIM 7240 EMAIL [email protected] NEW ZEALAND WEB www.marlborough.govt.nz
18 November 2016 Record No: 16221688 File Ref: D050-001-E01 Ask For: Nicole Chauval
Notice of Committee Meeting – Thursday, 24 November 2016
A meeting of the Environment Committee will be held in the Council Chambers, District Council Administration Building, 15 Seymour Street, Blenheim on Thursday, 24 November 2016 commencing at 9.00 am.
BUSINESS
As per Agenda attached.
MARK WHEELER CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Meeting of the ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chambers, District Administration Building, Seymour Street, on THURSDAY, 24 NOVEMBER 2016 commencing at 9.00 am
Committee Clr D D Oddie (Chairperson) Clr G A Hope (Deputy) Clr J A Arbuckle Clr T E Hook Clr C J Brooks Clr L M Shenfield Clr N P Taylor Mayor J C Leggett Mr E R Beech (Rural representative) Mr R Smith (Iwi representative)
Departmental Head Mr H Versteegh (Manager, Regulatory Department)
Staff Nicole Chauval (Committee Secretary)
In Public Page
1. Confirmation of Sub-committee Business ...... 1 2. Councillor Portfolios ...... 2 3. State of the Environment Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report 2016 ...... 3 4. Our Marine Environment 2016 ...... 8 5. The Cawthron Marlborough Environment Awards - Update and Appointment of Council Representative to Trust ...... 15 6. Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society ...... 17 7. Soil Properties in the Wairau Valley - Technical Report ...... 18 8. National Wilding Conifer Programme Update ...... 20 9. Review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012 ...... 22 10. Road Name Request – KAD Developments 2015 Limited ...... 23 11. Road Name Request – DeLuxe Properties Limited ...... 27 12. Appointment of Hearings Commissioners ...... 41 13. Delegation under Section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974 ...... 50 14. Industrial Discharge Monitoring Report ...... 51 15. Cleanfill and Quarry Monitoring Report ...... 54 16. Winery Solid Waste Update ...... 60 17. Dog Owner Satisfaction Survey Results ...... 62 18. Forestry Monitoring Report ...... 66 19. Aids to Navigation ...... 75 20. Marine Farm Light Audits ...... 76 21. Information Package ...... 77
1. Confirmation of Sub-committee Business
RECOMMENDED That the following approvals granted by the Swimming Pools Sub-committee under delegated authority (Environment Committee Minute R.13/14.166) be confirmed:
W Cairn & K Lange & J Davies - 210A Alabama Road, RD 4, Blenheim – exemption to install a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
D & R DeLuca and Flaxmere Trustees Ltd - 90 Jeffries Road, RD 3, Blenheim – exemption to install a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
P & A O’Reagan - 55 Staces Road, Grovetown, Blenheim - exemption to install door locks on the patio door and security stays on the window opening into pool area (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
G Coates & J Hunter – 28 Boyce Street, Renwick – exemption to install a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
P & H McManaway – 3264 Queen Charlotte Drive, Picton – approval to use a hard top spa pool cover with four tab locks on an unfenced spa pool (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
M Wilson, S Herd and R Wilson – 176 Ben Morven Road, RD 2, Blenheim – exemption to install a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
D & S Cameron – 17 Edgewater Place, Rarangi – exemption to install a Coverstar safety pool cover as confirmed by the installer (exemption pursuant to section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987).
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 1 2. Councillor Portfolios
(Report prepared by Clr Oddie) D050-001-E01
Purpose 1. The purpose of the report is to consider the appointment of Councillors to portfolios for the various activity areas managed by the Environment Committee. Background 2. During the previous term of the Council, Councillors were given more responsibility for operations and functions. In this regard each of the standing committees created portfolios for Committee members. It has been considered that the continuation of elected member portfolio holders will provide a level of value for this term of the Council. 3. The role of the portfolio holders are: To act as Council spokesperson for the nominated activity area at Committee and Council meetings. To provide governance leadership and direction for the activity area. To maintain liaison with the community. 4. Staff have a responsibility to liaise with the portfolio holder to keep them informed about current issues and activities.
Comments 5. The scope of the Environment Committee encompasses all of Council’s Regulatory Department functions with the exception of the preparation of the Council’s Resource Management Plans. 6. Under the current department structure activities are broadly managed under the following activity groupings: Environmental Science and Monitoring (including Biosecurity) Resource Consents Building Control Compliance (including Animal Control) Environmental Health Harbour Control SUMMARY 7. Following previous elections elected member portfolio holders be continued to provide a level of value for this term of the Council and that Councillors be assigned portfolios under the various activity areas managed by the Environment Committee. RECOMMENDED That the portfolios for the Environment Committee be confirmed as per the schedule below. Jamie Arbuckle...... Lead Animal Control with Clrs Shenfield and Taylor Cynthia Brooks ...... Resource Consents Lead Hearings with Clrs Oddie, Shenfield, Taylor & Arbuckle Ross Beech ...... Biosecurity Trevor Hook ...... Environmental Protection (Compliance) Gerald Hope ...... Lead Environmental Science & Monitoring David Oddie ...... Harbours Climate Change Hearings Laressa Shenfield ...... Building Control Animal Control Sub-committee Hearings Nadine Taylor ...... Animal Control Sub-committee with Clrs Arbuckle & Shenfield Hearings Environmental Health
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 2 3. State of the Environment Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report 2016 (also refer separate attachment)
(Report prepared by Steffi Henkel) E375-001-003-03
Purpose 1. To present the ‘State of the Environment Surface Water Quality Monitoring Report 2016’ (attached separately).
2. Steffi Henkel will provide a short presentation (10 minutes).
Background 3. The presented report is one of a series of annual reports on the state of the environment of the Marlborough District. The focus of this report is the state of surface water quality in the region’s rivers and streams.
4. Monthly measurements of chemical and physical parameters at 35 sites are summarised using a Water Quality Index. The calculation of the Index is based on the exceedance of guideline values and combines the data of the last three years (2013-2015).
5. To determine changes in water quality, Seasonal Kendall Trend Analysis was applied to the last five years and, where possible, to the last nine years of data.
Summary of Results 6. The Goulter River has recently been added to the programme. It is one of the very few large tributaries of the Wairau River that remains mostly unmodified by human activity. Although we do not as yet have a full three year data set, a preliminary Water Quality Index was calculated and the result shows that ‘excellent’ water quality is achievable by a relatively large river. This is good confirmation for the choice of guidelines values used for the calculation of the Water Quality Index.
7. Three sites have a Water Quality Index in the ‘good’ category, the Upper Te Hoiere/Pelorus, the Wakamarina River and Black Birch Stream. The main reason for the good water quality in these rivers is that more than 80% of their catchments remain in native vegetation.
8. Unfortunately, large areas of native forest, shrub and tussock in a catchment do not guarantee good water quality. Less than 15% of the Branch, Graham and Waitohi River catchments have been modified for human use. Yet, despite this limited area of human influence, the water quality of these waterways is classed as ‘fair’. The reasons differ for each of these waterways. For the Graham River pastoral land use and gravel extractions appear to impact on water quality, while the Waitohi River is influenced by its urban environment.
9. The majority of the sites monitored as part of the State of the Environment programme have Water Quality Indices in the ‘fair’ and ‘marginal’ categories. While an Index in the ‘fair’ category is still indicative of relatively good water quality, ‘marginal’ water quality is generally considered unacceptable. This is reflected in the new Marlborough Environment Plan, which requires that the causes of degradation are investigated for sites with marginal water quality. Investigations have been completed for two of these waterways and investigations of a further two are in the final stages. The development of catchment-specific enhancement plans will be the next step towards improving water quality.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 3 10. With the exception of the Tuamarina River, the water quality of sites in the ‘poor’ category is predominantly a result of natural causes. High mudstone and limestone content in the geology of the Awatere River and Waihopai River catchments cause high turbidity and pH values in these waterways.
11. Trend analysis shows a significant increase in turbidity over the last five years for both Awatere River sampling sites, but it is unclear if the causes are natural or human induced.
12. Analysis of nitrate data shows an increasing trend over the last five years for a number of sites north of the Wairau River. The wide range of this phenomenon indicates that a change in rainfall patterns is the most likely explanation.
13. Most spring-fed streams show a significant decrease in nitrate concentrations, which can be linked to the widespread conversion of pastures into vineyards in the Lower Wairau catchment. Soluble inorganic nitrogen, most of which is in the form of nitrate, is the main parameter causing a reduction of the Water Quality Indices for these waterways.
14. E. coli data were also analysed for trends and results show increases in concentrations for a number of sites, including the Taylor River, Flaxbourne River, mid Ōpaoa, Spring Creek, the Kaituna River and the Wairau Diversion. Investigations of the Taylor River have linked the faecal contamination to ducks, dogs, and recently also to human sewage entering the river due to damaged infrastructure as a result of earthquakes. For the other waterways, investigation similar to those undertaken in the Taylor River would be needed to identify the causes of increased E. coli concentrations.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 4
Figure 1: Water Quality Indices and parameter contributions to the reduction in Water Quality Indices for the 34 river and stream sites monitored as part of the State of the Environment programme.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 5
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 6
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 7
4. Our Marine Environment 2016
(Report prepared by Dr Steve Urlich) E325-009-001
Purpose 1. Provide the Committee with an overview of the recently issued report by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) on the state of New Zealand’s marine environment, and outline how the report’s findings relate to Marlborough’s coastal marine area.
2. The Our Marine Environment 2016 report can be found on the MfE website: www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Environmental%20reporting/our-marine-environment.pdf. A pictorial infographic of the key findings of the report is attached. (Refer Appendix 1)
Background 3. Our Marine Environment 2016 is the first national domain report required under the Environmental Reporting Act 2015, which came into effect on 27 June 2016.
4. The Act’s purpose is to report regularly on the environment, which is divided into different domains: air, atmosphere and climate, freshwater, land and marine. Each domain is reported on separately at six month intervals, with a synthesised all-domain report every three years.
5. The Council adopted a similar framework for its recent State of the Environment Report 2016: www.marlborough.govt.nz/Environment/State-of-the-Environment-Report.aspx. The publication of our synthesised report enables us to evaluate the state of our domains with the national picture.
6. Both reports adopt a form of the “State-Pressure-Response” framework for environmental reporting. The Environmental Reporting Act 2015 also includes a requirement to describe impacts on ecological integrity, public health, the economy, culture and recreation, and te ao Māori. The reports must also describe the changes to the state of the domain over time.
7. MfE and Stats NZ caution that gaps in national data make it hard to draw firm conclusions in some important areas. These include the state of marine habitats, or the full ecological impacts of fishing on coastal and open ocean ecosystems. These issues also exist for Marlborough’s marine environment.
8. MfE and Stats NZ are committed to improving national environment data, although the high cost of monitoring New Zealand’s vast marine environment is acknowledged. There are also challenges in integrating the work of agencies with different statutory responsibilities in New Zealand’s marine space.
9. The Council faces similar issues in deciding what to monitor with limited resources in our coastal waters. Council’s 2012 coastal monitoring strategy provides monitoring guidance and broad objectives. This strategy will be refreshed in 2017 to effectively align with the Environmental Reporting Act 2015, and the anticipated environmental results in the Marlborough Environment Plan.
Comments 10. The overriding finding of Our Marine Environment 2016 is that human pressures are causing change to our oceans and marine biodiversity that have implications for generations of New Zealanders. The cumulative effects of these changes are resulting in serious threats to the benefits that current and future generations receive from the ocean.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 8 11. The report identifies three major areas of concern: a) Global greenhouse gas emissions causing ocean acidification and warming. b) Most native marine birds and mammals are threatened with extinction. c) Coastal marine habitats and ecosystems are degraded.
Ocean acidification and ocean warming
12. The world’s oceans are absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere and more heat. The increase in dissolved CO2 results in changes to seawater chemistry, reducing the availability of carbonate ions crucial for calcifying organisms and their habitats. The negative consequences can include problems in forming shells for mussels and paua, or dissolution of calcium carbonate structures.
13. This could have implications for Marlborough’s shellfish aquaculture industry. Research funded by the Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) is underway through the Coastal Acidification: Rates, Impacts & Management (CARIM) programme led by National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA). A network of pH monitoring sites around the country has been set up by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and NIWA, including a site in Beatrix Bay.
14. Ocean warming may also affect the aquaculture and fishing industries. Ocean currents are also predicted to change, resulting in shifts in fish distributions and habitat modifications. One example is the decline of Macrocystis kelp forests in the Sounds, which provide food and habitat for paua and fish. Ocean warming may be worsened by the effects of overfishing on marine ecosystems.
15. Council is responding primarily by supporting research. For example, the CARIM project is looking at ways to buffer declining pH of seawater, such as exploring whether waste mussel shell could be returned to Pelorus Sound. This is in early stages and may lead to a joint project with industry and the community to restore the biodiverse mussel reefs which used to be there.
16. The other major consequence of ocean warming is sea level rise. This is caused by melting glaciers and thermal expansion as oceans absorb more heat. The report identifies that sea levels have risen up to 2mm a year on average between 1900 and 2013. Storm surges inundating low-lying areas are predicted to become more frequent over time in different parts of the country.
Extinction threat to seabirds and marine mammals 17. Marlborough is home to the nationally endangered Hectors and Bottlenose dolphins, and the nationally critical Orca. The King Shag is our only endemic seabird (Figure 2), which means it is found nowhere else. A survey in February 2015 counted only 839 of this nationally endangered species. They are mainly found in the outer Sounds, where they nest on islands and headlands.
Figure 2: (from left) NZ King Shag (Photo: Rob Schuckard). Hectors’ dolphins (Sam Du Fresne); Bottlenose dolphins (Peter Hamill).
18. There has been (largely unresolved) debate in aquaculture hearings on individual marine farm effects on King Shag. Significant information gaps exist, which would be more effectively addressed through an integrated research programme. Council wrote to the Department of Conservation (DoC) in 2015 proposing this be done by DoC in partnership with industry and MPI.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 9 19. The Marine Farming Association (MFA) is planning a workshop with different agencies to discuss research needs and funding to address research gaps. These gaps include: better understanding of King Shag population dynamics, diet, feeding range and behaviour, use of mussel farms, and effects of commercial dredging and bottom-trawling on King Shag prey and habitat.
20. DoC is also responsible for the management of marine mammals, including boatie behaviour. DoC and the Council are working together to understand the condition of ecologically significant habitats, which may be important feeding areas: www.marlborough.govt.nz/Environment/Coastal/Coastal-Ecosystems/Significant-Marine- Sites.aspx.
Degradation of coastal marine ecosystems 21. The most important coastal pressures, alongside ocean acidification and climate change impacts, identified in Our Marine Environment 2016 are: a) Excess sedimentation b) Seabed trawling and dredging for fish and shellfish c) Marine pests d) Excess nutrients carried down waterways
22. Sedimentation of coastal waters has generated concern within the Marlborough community. Excess sediment levels above historic rates have resulted in the estuaries becoming muddier, and habitats smothered, and ecosystems degraded by loss of biodiversity and alteration of ecosystem processes (Figure 3). Sediment sources include forestry, farming, subdivisions and roading.
Figure 3: Sedimentation damage to an ecological significant marine site in Tory Channel, caused by forestry (Photos: Rob Davidson).
23. Council has recently undertaken reviews of forestry and roading contributions to sedimentation and effects on coastal waters. The combination of clay-rich and highly-erodible soils, steep slopes and low flow environments overwhelm the ability of the seabed to cope in many places: http://www.marlborough.govt.nz/Environment/Coastal/Coastal-Ecosystems/Sedimentation.aspx.
24. An integrated range of measures to mitigate sedimentation effects from forestry has been identified. These include: coastal setbacks, riparian setbacks and retirement of steep erosion-prone slopes which can be implemented by a replanting management plan. Implementation of these measures will significantly reduce sediment inputs into coastal waters (Figure 4).
25. Formal consideration by the Council of these measures will be through the hearings process on public submissions to the Marlborough Environment Plan. The ability of Council to protect sensitive receiving environments such as estuaries and coastal waters, may also be enabled by the Government’s National Environment Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) due in 2017.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 10 26. To better understand how ecosystems have changed over time the Council, MPI and MFA have funded a seabed coring study in Pelorus Sound. This will quantify how human activities have influenced sedimentation rates and the health of seabed communities. A separate study in Havelock estuary will shortly get underway to identify why the estuary is becoming muddier.
Figure 4: Council report on ways to reduce sediment (left). An example of good practice from Havelock - native forest has been left to stabilise steep erosion-prone gullies and riparian areas buffer waterways from chronic sediment flows (Photo: Steve Urlich).
27. Sedimentation is not just a consequence of poor land-uses practices. Our Marine Environment 2016 highlights that seabed trawling and dredging also generates sediment.
28. Disturbance of the seabed re-suspends sediment into the water column. Not only are benthic invertebrate communities which provide food and habit for fish destroyed, plumes of sediment disrupt photosynthesis. This results in a loss of ecosystem productivity which echoes through the marine food web. Sedimentation and loss of habitat reduce the abundance of shellfish and fish.
29. This is evident to Marlburians in the decline of scallops, naturally occurring green-lipped mussel beds, blue cod, snapper and paua. These species either form or rely on biogenic (living) habitats, which are crucial for the abundance and sustainability of important recreational, customary and commercial fish and shellfish species.
30. Monitoring by the Council and the DoC has shown that vulnerable and fragile habitats, such as bryozoan beds and horse mussels, have experienced recent damage from dredging and trawling. Historical research by NIWA has also identified the widespread habitat damage and destruction of habitats as a consequence of a century of unrestricted dredging and bottom-trawling in the Sounds.
31. Council cannot regulate fishing, but it can regulate the effects of disturbance to the seabed which cause damage or destruction of valuable remaining habitats. The Council prohibited dredging and bottom-trawling at ecologically significant marine sites in the Marlborough Environment Plan. This is a tiny fraction of the seabed managed by the Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.
32. Marine pests can also alter the structure and function of marine ecosystems. For example, the invasive Mediterranean fanworm has been detected in Picton Marina and also on a number of arriving vessels into Marlborough. This species can take over large areas of the seabed as experience in Australia and Auckland has shown (Figure 5).
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 11
Figure 5: (Left) The Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii ) on the seabed in Port Phillip Bay, Australia. (Photo: Marine Education Society of Australasia). (Right) A heavily fouled yacht containing fanworm (Photo: Biosecurity NZ).
33. Council has joined with Nelson and Tasman councils, Iwi, aquaculture industry, ports, and MPI in a Top of the South Marine Biosecurity partnership. This focuses on education, awareness and engagement activities across the Top of the South. It also provides for a platform to ensure that any marine pest response decisions are more robust and coordinated.
34. Management of pathways by which marine pests could find their way into Marlborough is a high priority, but difficult to implement with the untested nature of current regulatory tools and fragmented nature of the recreational vessel sector, which is currently the greatest risk for pest transfer.
35. Our Marine Environment 2016 identified that numbers of marine pests breeding in marine waters has increased by 10% since 2009 with 33 new species recorded. These pests can affect the aquaculture and fishing industries as well as recreation and cultural shellfish harvesting. The cure is preventing species from reaching the country as spread within the country is almost inevitable.
36. Other marine pressures highlighted in the report include: excess nutrients in waterways, plastic and oil based pollution, seabed over-enrichment, dredging, reclamation and anchor damage to fragile biogenic habitats. These all occur in Marlborough, but the scale and intensity are such that ecological effects are generally more localised and are unlikely to cause significant change to ecosystems. The issue of micro-beads and other emerging contaminants is of concern though.
Council state of the environment monitoring 37. The Council has established a number of monitoring programmes since the publication of the 2012 monitoring strategy (Table 1). These are starting to build a picture of ecological condition of key ecosystems, such as estuaries and the water quality of the Sounds. However, there are gaps in coverage and new technologies available which will improve management of these ecosystems.
38. A refresh of the 2012 Coastal Monitoring Strategy will be put to the Committee in early 2017. Council has 725,000 hectares of coastal waters to manage. Priorities for monitoring need to align with the anticipated environmental results of the Marlborough Environment Plan, and should also contribute to the MfE/Stats NZ national state of the environment reporting where possible.
39. Council will look to partner with other interested parties in monitoring, such as DoC, MPI, the aquaculture industry and the forestry industry. Council will also continue to build its relationships with Te Tau Ihu Iwi in monitoring coastal taonga tuku iho.
40. Council is also looking to develop a science strategy with Iwi and others in the wider community in 2017. This will provide a means of prioritising funds from coastal occupancy charges. The strategy will aim to increase our fundamental knowledge of our coastal waters, and the pressures of human activities on the ecosystems which sustain much of our economy and social values.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 12 Table 1: Overview of current Council state of the coastal environment monitoring
Ecosystem Where Frequency Began Comments Water column Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound Monthly 2012 Spatial coverage good; temporal Tōtaranui/Queen Charlotte 2011 coverage needs improving. Moored instruments can give 24/7 data Estuaries Havelock, Wairau, Five yearly 2011 Spatial and temporal coverage fit for Waikawa, Whangarae, purpose. Monitoring Shakespeare, Kaiuma Mahakipawa, Grove Arm Significant Marlborough’s CMA Annual- 2015 Only a small selection of the 120+ marine sites decadal sites is able to be monitored each year. New sites may be discovered Ship-wake Tōtaranui/Queen Charlotte Bi-annual 1996 Shoreline profiles and intertidal and Kura Te Au/Tory Channel subtidal invertebrate communities Sedimentation N/A N/A Council and Marlborough Forestry Association have jointly bid for funds to the Forest Growers Levy Trust
Summary 41. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and Statistics New Zealand (Stats NZ) have released a report on the state of New Zealand’s marine domain. This report Our Marine Environment 2016 is the first report required under the new Environmental Reporting Act 2015. The three top issues identified are: Ocean warming and acidification; native seabirds and mammals threatened with extinction; and degradation of coastal marine habitats and ecosystems. These issues also affect Marlborough as illustrated by our recent State of the Environment Report. Although MfE and Stats NZ caution that the data are limited nationally for many issues, it is clear that New Zealand has not been managing its coastal resources in an ecologically sustainable way. The key issues for Marlborough coastal waters are habitat damage and destruction, sedimentation and overfishing. Council has statutory responsibility for addressing the first two issues through the Marlborough Environment Plan. Although Council has solid monitoring programmes in place, new technologies are available that will improve the quality and frequency of data and greatly assist management. Gaps also exist in monitoring coverage, which will be addressed through a refresh of the 2012 Coastal Monitoring Strategy. The need for a Coastal Science Strategy has also been identified.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 13
Appendix 1
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 14
5. The Cawthron Marlborough Environment Awards - Update and Appointment of Council Representative to Trust
(Report prepared by Nicky Eade) E340-008-005-05
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the Marlborough Environment Awards, to update Councillors about the current Awards round and to promote the appointment of a Councillor representative to the Awards Trust.
Background 2. The Marlborough Environment Awards were established in 1996 and have been run biennially since this time under the umbrella of a Trust which includes the Council, Marlborough Environment Centre, Marlborough Winegrowers, Marlborough Forest Industry Association, Federated Farmers and the Department of Conservation as an ex-officio member.
3. The purpose of the Awards is to promote the concept that “Sound Environmental Management is Good Business” and to showcase environmental best practice and innovation in the Marlborough region.
4. In 2014 the Cawthron Institute, based in Nelson, became the principal sponsor of the Environment Awards and they were renamed the “Cawthron Marlborough Environment Awards” to reflect the sponsorship naming rights.
5. The Council plays a key role as joint anchor sponsor with Cawthron and assisting to administer the Awards, in partnership with the Trust. A paid co-ordinator is also employed to assist with running the Awards.
6. Sponsorship of the 2016/17 Awards includes the Cawthron Institute as anchor sponsor, Nelmac as dinner event sponsor, the Marlborough Research Centre and Plant and Food Research as joint overall supreme award sponsors, along with the various six/seven category sponsors.
Comments 7. The eleventh Cawthron Marlborough Environment Awards were launched on 5 August 2016 the Rangitane Centre in Grovetown. Entries for the Awards closed in late September with 22 entries in total being received over six categories (Farming, Wine Industry Innovation, Marine, Business Innovation, Community Innovation and Habitat Enhancement/Landscape).
8. Judging of the Awards is now underway and should be completed by mid-December. The Award winners will be announced at a presentation dinner to be held at the Marlborough Convention Centre on 31 March 2017. A series of field days and promotional events will then be held over April/May 2017 to promote and showcase the winning entrants.
9. Councillors may be aware of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards which run in other parts of the country with similar objectives to the Marlborough Environment Awards. Recently the NZ Farm Environment Awards Trust, which administers the Ballance Awards, approached the Council to discuss Marlborough, along with other Top of the South councils (Tasman, Nelson and the West Coast) combining to come under the umbrella of the Ballance Awards. However, this proposal is not considered feasible for Marlborough at this time and a number of issues would need to be resolved for this to occur in the future.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 15 10. Councillor Peter Jerram was the Council’s representative on the Awards Trust over recent years and a replacement needs to be appointed.
Summary 11. The Marlborough Environment Awards have been operating biennially in the Marlborough region since 1996 and promote the concept that “Sound Environmental Management is Good Business”. Environmental best practice and innovation are showcased through related publicity including a website, the dinner event and a series of field days and seminars.
12. The Council’s involvement in the Awards involves integration with other agencies and sector groups and plays a part in fulfilling Council objectives and policies to promote environmental best practice and achieve good environmental outcomes.
13. A Councillor should be appointed to represent the Council on the Awards Trust.
RECOMMENDED 1. That the information be received. 2. That a Councillor from the Environment Committee be appointed to represent Council on the Marlborough Environment Awards Trust.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 16 6. Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society
(Report prepared by Peter Hamill & Alan Johnson) C230-001-G01
Purpose 1. To nominate an elected member to be the Council’s representative on the Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society executive.
Background 2. Grovetown Lagoon is an old oxbow loop of the Wairau River. Hydrological modifications and nutrient inputs from the surrounding catchment over the years have contributed to the degradation of the natural and recreational values. The Grovetown Lagoon Restoration Project - Te Whanau Hou was established with a vision to improve the state of the greater Grovetown Wetland and Lagoon area. The Grovetown Lagoon Restoration Project - Te Whanau Hou is comprised of members of the Council, Department of Conservation, local community, Te Runanga A Rangitane o Wairau, Ngati Rarua Trust and Ngati Toarangatira Manawhenua Ki Te Tau Ihu Trust.
3. The Grovetown Lagoon Society restoration project was launched on 2 February 2002. Since this time weed control and plantings of native species has been undertaken around the Lagoon in order to restore the riparian vegetation back to native species.
4. As part of the strategic vision, a public walkway around the perimeter of the Lagoon is also envisaged that would enable full public access and to realise the opportunity for the public to enjoy the wildlife and habitats of the Lagoon. The installation of the bridge in September, that was part funded by the Council, was a significant milestone in the creation of the public walkway.
5. The Council and the Department of Conservation have provided annual funding for the project. In 2005 the Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society was also set up to allow the group to apply for funding from external agencies.
6. With a new council in place after the 2016 election it is appropriate that the Council nominate an elected member to be appointed onto the executive of Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society.
7. Councillor Cynthia Brooks has been the Council representative of the incorporated society executive since 2014.
Summary 8. With a new council in place since the election the Council needs to consider the reappointment of a councillor to be a representative on Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society executive.
RECOMMENDED 1. That the information be received. 2. That a Councillor be appointed as a Council representative to the Te Whanau Hou - Grovetown Lagoon Incorporated Society.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 17 7. Soil Properties in the Wairau Valley - Technical Report (also refer separate attachment)
(Report prepared by Rachel Rait) E355-004-008-08
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to summarise the Soil Properties in the Wairau Valley 2016 report (attached separately).
Background 2. Councils have responsibility for promoting the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of their region. Soils are one of the physical resources that we have a duty under Section 35 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to monitor and report on, including the “life supporting capacity of soil” and determining whether current practices will meet the “foreseeable needs of future generations”.
3. To help meet these goals the Council undertakes soil characterisation in areas where there is limited soils information. The work has been completed at a scale that provides guidance about the range of soil properties that might be encountered within the Middle Wairau Valley, but further detailed site-specific work would be required on a farm scale for use in determining best practice for effluent discharge and irrigation.
4. The aim of this project was therefore to describe and sample soils from representative sites in the Wairau Valley and undertake a range of analysis for both topsoil and subsoils. This information will be summarised into fact sheets and made available to landowners in the region, and be available for incorporation into various models used by Council and industry to ensure the most efficient use and protection of our natural resources.
Comments 5. A series of soil auger observations were made across a range of sites in the Wairau Valley to identify the dominant soil types. Thirty-six soil profiles were described with topsoils and subsoils sampled and analysed for a range of soil physical and chemical properties.
6. Ten soil families were identified in the Wairau Valley; the Awatere, Wairau, Wairau mottled, Spring Creek, Omaka, Hillersden, Renwick, Broadbridge, Marama and Jordon soils.
7. The Awatere, Wairau, Wairau mottled and Omaka families of soils occur on the lower terrace systems of the valley floor. The intermediate terraces are occupied by Hillersden and Broadbridge soils. Renwick soils occupy fan surfaces that have outwashed from adjacent hills that surround the valley floor. Spring Creek soils can be found in low or intermediate terrace areas that are poorly drained. Marama soils occupy sites that are formed by small local streams and their nearby terraces. Jordon soils occupy a single loess covered high terrace location.
8. The Awatere, Wairau, Wairau mottled, Omaka, Hillersden, Renwick, Marama, Jordon soils (29 sites) were generally well or moderately drained and have moderately rapid permeability and high water storage capacities. These properties lower risk of direct losses from land application of effluent because of their ability to store and treat effluent.
9. The Broadbridge and Spring Creek soils (7 sites) were poorly or imperfectly drained, have slow to moderately slow permeability and have high water storage capacities. These properties make the soils generally higher risk in terms of direct losses from land application of effluent.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 18 Summary 10. The soil sampling work in this project is at a large scale to provide a general overview of the range of soil properties likely to be encountered, but further detailed site specific work would be required on a farm scale for use in determining best practice for effluent discharge and irrigation. Detailed, farm scale soil mapping (i.e. 1:5,000) would help separate soils within the families which are not as well drained or those with lower permeabilities and should be done on site specific basis when categorising the soil for effluent or irrigation application.
RECOMMENDED That the report be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 19 8. National Wilding Conifer Programme Update
(Report prepared by Jono Underwood) E315-023-001-01
Purpose 1. To update the Committee on the National Wilding Conifer Programme being led by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and initiatives that are underway locally and proposed for the future.
2. Jono Underwood will provide a short presentation (10 minutes).
Background 3. MPI led a process to develop a New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Strategy which was released in December 2014. This Strategy drew on the input from a wide range of stakeholders, including local government.
4. One of the key themes highlighted in the Strategy was that wilding conifer management commonly occurs at landscape scales and requires strong collaborative approaches. It also highlighted the need for greater levels of investment so as to ensure future impacts are to be avoided.
5. With support from stakeholders, a business case was prepared by MPI to increase the level of Crown investment. This was approved in Budget 2016 to the tune of $16 million over the next four years.
6. While the business case was being prepared, a prioritisation project was also occurring to inform decision makers over where investment would be best placed knowing, in the short-term, the full level of resource required to address the national issue would not be available immediately.
7. Two areas of Marlborough were considered to be a priority, being Molesworth (Level 1) and Waihopai (Level 3). The Waihopai area, for the purposes of the prioritisation project, included the Upper Waihopai, Ferny Gair/Black Birch and Wye Reserve area.
8. From July to September 2016, Department of Conservation (DoC) Renwick staff, Council staff with support from the South Marlborough Landscape Restoration Trust, saw an Operational Plan for Molesworth submitted to MPI. This largely built on the existing programme at Molesworth being delivered by DoC and Landcorp Farming, but at an expanded level and to a wider area.
9. The first iteration of the Molesworth Operational Plan was not approved in its entirety given the level of additional funding required to meet the goals laid out in the plan. However, with some components reduced in scale, while still acknowledging the original goals, a Plan was approved for the first four years of the National Programme.
10. The structure of the National Programme has been agreed whereby the respective regional/unitary councils will act as regional coordinators and finance managers for works occurring under approved National Programme Operational Plans. As a result, a Funding Agreement has been developed and due to be signed between each council and MPI.
11. The additional funding approved to be injected by MPI into the Molesworth programme in the first year (2016/17) is $271,407, excluding GST.
12. Council is currently providing resource to assist in the development of operational planning material, liaising between the National Programme (MPI) and those implementing the on-ground works (e.g. DoC), and ultimately collating information to report back to MPI on progress.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 20 13. The next area targeted under the National Programme is the Waihopai. This area provides a new set of challenges and is in the very early stages of Operational Plan development in association with the South Marlborough Landscape Restoration Trust. This Trust may be well suited to implement a programme in such a complex environment.
Summary 14. The National Wilding Conifer Programme being led by MPI is now underway as a result of the $16 million Budget 2016 announcement.
15. While in the early stages, Council is heavily involved in the provision of regional coordination services and acting as a ‘banker’ for the Crown investment into operations.
16. An expanded and more intensive operational programme will commence at Molesworth this year and continue of the following four years at least.
17. The next area targeted will be the Waihopai, although getting to the operational implementation stage will be more complex and challenging.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 21 9. Review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012
(Report prepared by Jono Underwood & Sarah Edmonds) E315-002-005-01
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to outline the process for continuing the major review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2012 through the next term of the Council.
Background 2. In February 2013 a scoping paper was presented to the Environment Committee describing the reasons for and a proposed process required for undertaking the major review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012. As a result of that meeting a major review commenced.
3. A sub-committee was established to undertake the review in conjunction with biosecurity staff. In February 2014, the membership of the sub-committee was updated to reflect a newly elected Council. The membership comprised Councillors P Jerram, C Brooks, D Oddie, J Arbuckle and elected rural representative Mr Beech.
4. This committee continued the review process and in March 2016 released a Discussion Document to the community for comment.
5. Feedback from the Discussion Document has been received and is being used in the current drafting of a Proposal (or Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan).
6. Rather than establishing a sub-committee the full Environment Committee will be involved in the review process.
7. The first priority of the Committee is to review the feedback from the preliminary consultation undertaken in 2016. A workshop will be held to review these comments.
8. Council staff will continue to prepare (and have material available at upcoming workshops) a draft Proposal (or Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan) with the Committee. This will include consulting with those that gave feedback on the Discussion Document and other interested parties before the Proposal is released for notification and public submission.
9. The outcome of the review will be for the Council to release a new Regional Pest Management Plan for Marlborough.
Summary 10. The major review of the Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012 will continue in the next term of the Council.
11. A workshop to review feedback received from the Discussion Document consultation and early Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan material will be scheduled for the Committee.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 22 10. Road Name Request – KAD Developments 2015 Limited
(Report prepared by Ian Sutherland) U160302
Background 1. The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider officially naming a new road to be created as part of a subdivision off Tremorne Avenue Blenheim. The new road is approximately 320 metres long and loops back onto Tremorne Avenue. It will serve the 21 new residential lots formed as part of the subdivision, as well as five existing private properties.
2. These five existing properties are currently accessed via private rights-of-way, however the rights-of-way are to be extinguished and the new road will instead provide access to these lots. The street addresses for these existing properties are currently linked to Tremorne Avenue, but these will need to be reallocated new street addresses linked to the new road. For example, 7A Tremorne Avenue will be renumbered 4 (new road name).
3. The subdivision was approved by the Council on 2 June 2016 and included a condition that road name suggestions for the new road be provided to the Council for consideration.
4. Appended is a scheme plan (Appendix 1) showing the new road to be created.
Proposal 5. The developer has presented two suggestions for naming the new road:
Camborne Crescent – This is the developer’s first choice. Camborne is an English name that was originally mentioned on the first Stage of the DeCastro development. I note that since then the Council has named the reserve located directly across the Tremorne Avenue from the new road as “Camborne Green”.
Knox Crescent – This is the developer’s second choice. Robert Knox DeCastro was the original developer of this wider area which included this parent allotment being subdivided, and Geoffrey Knox DeCastro was a close relation of Robert (he was listed as a shareholder at the time of the original development).
Evaluation against Road Naming Policy 6. The following are relevant matters from the policy to consider in this proposal:
Duplication: (That duplication of names not be allowed where the same or similar name occurs within the Marlborough District).
There is no duplication with existing road names. While there is a reserve named Camborne Green nearby, this is unlikely to result in any confusion.
Road Type: (That road type terms be used in circumstances appropriate to the physical situation with the definitions acting as a guide). There are several types in the definitions that could be used, these being:
Crescent: A crescent shaped street generally with both ends intersecting with the same street. Lane: A narrow passage between hedges or buildings, an alley. Road: Being a route or way between places. Street: Being any road.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 23 The use of “Crescent” would fit perfectly with the policy as it is more or less crescent shaped and both ends intersect with Tremorne Avenue.
Personal Names: That personal names be discouraged unless the name submitted has an historical connection with the property being subdivided, or is that of a well-known local identity or prominent Marlburian or New Zealander.
Knox is a family name that has an historic connection with the original residential developers of the area.
Length of Names: (That names to be short (as a guide - 15 characters or less), single words, which are readily pronounced and spelt to satisfy the requirements of emergency services and chosen in proportion to the length of the road).
Camborne Crescent contains 16 characters which is a little long for the short length of road, but it is not excessively long and Crescent can be abbreviated to Cres on signs and maps if needed.
Consultation 7. The proposed names were circulated by the Council to all Iwi, local historians and Marlborough Roads for comment. The only response received was from the Marlborough Museum who had no concerns with either name.
8. Importantly, the developer and the Council also consulted with the five affected property owners who will end up with the new road name as part of their street address. The responses showed that one owner seriously objected to Knox Crescent, while the others said that they were happy with either. All of them were happy with the name Camborne Crescent.
Conclusion 9. There does not appear to be any significant issues with either of the options meeting the evaluation criteria of the policy, however there is strong opposition from one of the existing property owners to the name Knox Crescent.
10. The name that ticks all the boxes is Camborne Crescent. It is the developers first choice, it meets the requirements of the policy, it aligns with the name of the nearby reserve and also importantly it is acceptable to the existing five property owners whose addresses will change to it once the new road has been completed and vested in Council ownership.
RECOMMENDED That once vested in the Council the proposed new road, shown on the appended plan, be named “Camborne Crescent”.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 24
Appendix 1
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 25 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 26
11. Road Name Request – DeLuxe Properties Limited
(Report prepared by Ian Sutherland) U160625
Background 1. The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider officially naming new roads to be created as part of a subdivision off Old Renwick Road.
2. There are three new roads to be created in the subdivision, one of these will connect to Old Renwick Road at the intersection with Mowat Street.
3. A locality map and scheme plan of the subdivision and new road are provided in Appendix A.
4. This development is only a small portion of the eventual proposed residential development as shown in Appendix B. Approximately 13 roads will be eventually created. Road names for these other roads will be sought as the development extends.
5. As at the time of writing this report the subdivision consent had not yet been approved by the Council, but this is anticipated to have been completed prior to the Committee meeting.
Proposal 6. The developer has presented two names for each road, in order of preference:
Road 1: Rose Manor Drive Melrose Drive
Road 2: Rembrandt Drive Champagne Drive
Road 3: St Michaels Close Spencer Close
7. As background to the proposed names, the applicant explains that Blenheim, Marlborough and New Zealand have very strong links to the United Kingdom. For example, Blenheim was named after the famous victory of the armies of the Duke of Marlborough over the French at the village of Blenheim in south Germany in 1704.
8. DeLuxe have used very English themed names in Covent Gardens and Nottinghill development and wish to continue doing so.
9. The application in Appendix C gives a background to the thought process that Greg Smith from DeLuxe Properties has made to the possible names and why he has discounted some themes. Please note that “Manor Drive” was originally proposed for the main road, however this was subsequently changed to “Rose Manor Drive” to avoid conflicts with another existing road name. The spelling of “Rembrant” for Road 2 was also corrected to “Rembrandt”.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 27 10. In relation to the proposed names put forward, other reasons for the proposed names are: Road 1 – The preferred “Rose Manor Drive” name picks up on the name the developer has given the overall proposed development “Rose Manor”, similar to what happened at Covent Gardens and Nottinghill. “Melrose Drive” hints of the Roselands theme for the area west of Springlands. Road 2 – The proposed names “Rembrandt Drive” or “Champagne Drive” are strong names considered appropriate for this long road. Wikipedia indicates that “Rembrandt” is often associated with the famous Dutch artist and “Champagne” with the sparkling wine from France. Road 3 – The proposed names “St Michaels Close” or “Spencer Close” are to reflect that it is a double ended cul-de-sac. Wikipedia indicates that “St Michaels” is often associated with the Archangel in the Old Testament and is used in many school and church names in England. Wikipedia also notes that the name “Spencer” is linked to one of England’s preeminent aristocratic families (example Princess Diana).
Evaluation Against Road Naming Policy 11. Council last updated the Road Naming Policy in 2002 in Appendix D and the proposed new names have been assessed against that policy. (Please note that the policy is currently being reviewed.) The policy is intended to assist the Council to achieve a consistent approach to road naming.
12. The relevant matters from the policy to consider in this proposal are as follows:
Consultation: (That proposed road names are to be referred to all Marlborough Iwi and a copy sent to the Maori Advisory Committee.) Assessment: The proposed names were circulated to all Iwi on 31 August 2016. No response has been received from any of the Iwi. There is currently no Maori Advisory Committee. The proposed names were also sent to the Marlborough Historical Society, Marlborough Museum, Marlborough Roads and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) for comment. The initial consultation was based on the main road being called “Manor Drive” and this resulted in concerns being raised by Marlborough Roads and the Marlborough Museum that it would conflict with the existing road named “Manor Place”. The applicant subsequently amended the name to “Rose Manor Drive” to address those concerns and Marlborough Roads are now reasonably satisfied that no conflicts or confusion will arise with this or the other proposed road names. Land Information New Zealand were consulted to ensure that the roads and subsequent street addresses would meet the New Zealand Standards in which they administer. They confirm that the proposed names and street addresses in relation to the proposed road layout would meet their requirements.
Duplication: (That duplication of names not be allowed where the same or similar name occurs within the Marlborough District.) Assessment: “Rose Manor Drive” is similar with several other street names in Blenheim, these being Rose Street, Roseneath Lane, Rosewood Place and Manor Place. There is also a Manor Park in Blenheim. There is a small risk that there will be some confusion, however the risk is relatively low as I cannot find any record or complaint in relation to confusion occurring between the existing Rose Street, Roseneath Lane or Rosewood Place names. As mentioned earlier, Marlborough Roads did have a concern with the initially proposed name, Manor Drive, but have much less concern with Rose Manor Drive. There are no duplication concerns identified with any other proposed names.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 28 Theme: (That where more than one road is being created in a subdivision, a common theme is recommended for names.) Assessment: My research confirms that these names all have English connection, being the theme proposed by the applicant.
Length of Names: (That names to be short (as a guide - 15 characters or less), single words, which are readily pronounced and spelt to satisfy the requirements of emergency services, and chosen in proportion to the length of the road.) Assessment: The names are likely to be readily pronounced and most are likely to be readily spelt. The length of names are 15 characters or less. However, they are slightly longer than preferable compared to the length of the roads, particularly St Michaels Close which is at the maximum 15 character guideline. Two of the proposed names are however double word names, these being “Rose Manor” Drive and “St Michaels” Drive. These names do not strictly comply with the policy.
Road Type: (That road type terms be used in circumstances appropriate to the physical situation with the definitions acting as a guide.) There are several road types in the definitions that could be used, these being: Avenue: Wide straight roadway or street planted both sides with trees. Drive: A main connecting route in a suburb. Close: A no exit road, short in length serving a small number of properties, similar to Place. Place: A no exit road, longer than a Close with a turning circle at its blind end. Road: Being a route or way between places. Street: Being any road. The New Zealand standards AS/NZS 4818:2011 in Appendix E also provide the following relevant definitions for road types (where different from above): Avenue: Broad roadway, usually planted on each side with trees. Drive: Wide main roadway without many cross-streets. Close: Short enclosed roadway. Place: Short, sometimes narrow, enclosed roadway. Assessment: Proposed Roads 1 and 2 are to be named as ‘Drive’. While these new roads, particularly Road 2, will not be serving many lots at this first stage of development, they eventually will be once the future planned residential development within the new urban residential zone has been completed. Road 1 in particular is more likely to be considered as a connecting route as it is the only road planned by this development to connect to Old Renwick Road. Another connection is shown on the planning maps at Colemans Road intersection, however that depends on the desires of that owner. Rembrandt is not as clearly a connecting route, however to call it a Road or Street would potentially lose some of the strength and theme that the developer is trying to achieve. I note that none of the future roads on Appendix B are proposed to be called Road or Street, or the roads in their other developments, so clearly these road type terms are not liked by the applicant. An alternative could be Avenue. There are no details as yet of tree landscaping, but DeLuxe Properties normally do provide attractive landscaping so may be an option if so desired by the Committee. The use of road type “Close” for Road 3 is an option under the policy. There are other “Close” names within Springlands, such as Windsor Close (serving 16 properties) and Maple Close (servicing 9 properties). I note that three roads in this future development are also to be named Close, so consistency is important. The alternative is for it to be called a “Place” which are for longer cul-de-sacs. There are many more “Place” types in Springlands than “Close”. The policy gives a guideline that a “Place” is supposed to be longer than a “Close”, but I note that this has not always been reflected in the past with, for instance, Windsor Close being longer than Hyde Place in the Nottinghill subdivision.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 29 Conclusions 13. Road 1 – Rose Manor Drive contains double words and therefore does not strictly comply with the policy that names be single words. However, the words are relatively short so will not create any problems for road signs or maps. The alternative name Melrose Drive does meet the policy, however, is not the preferred choice of the developer as the whole extended DeLuxe Properties Limited development is to be marketed under the name of Rose Manor Subdivision. The Council recently approved a road name, Rosina Corlett Lane, near the Omaka Aviation Heritage Centre, which shows that exceptions to the policy can be considered by the Committee if desired.
14. Road 2 – Either Rembrandt Drive or Champagne Drive names meet the policy in most respects, although the road may not be a true ‘Drive’ as it does have several cross-streets just like any ordinary street and therefore not an obvious main connecting route. Avenue could be an alternative road type, but there is no certainty on the final tree landscaping at this early stage.
15. Road 3 – St Michaels Close is also a double word name and therefore also does not strictly comply with the policy. It is also slightly longer in length being the maximum 15 character guideline. Spencer Close would better comply with the policy. Additionally the road will eventually extend northwards for a similar length to serve approximately 24 properties in total meaning that perhaps it should be given a road type of Place instead of the proposed Close.
16. Another matter to consider is the timing of the Council's approval for the road names. Once approved, the names are officially sent to LINZ and other official organisations so that they can update addressing records. I believe that it would be inappropriate for the Council to give approval to the proposed road names until at least the subdivision consent has been granted by the Council. At the time of preparing this report, the subdivision application U160625 had not been approved, but was close.
17. There is a question as to whether the name approval should also be withheld until the roads have actually been constructed, however that is being looked into as part of the road naming policy review.
RECOMMENDED 1. That either: (a) If the subdivision has not been approved prior to the Committee meeting, then an interim decision be issued that the following names will be approved upon obtaining subdivision consent that creates these three roads, or (b) If the subdivision consent has been granted by the Council, the following names be approved by the Committee: i) Road 1 - Rose Manor Drive ii) Road 2 - Rembrandt Drive (or Rembrandt Avenue) iii) Road 3 - Spencer Place
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 30
Appendix A
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 31
Appendix B
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 32
Appendix C
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 33
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 34
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 35
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 36 Appendix D Road Naming Policy
R.02/03.68 Planning Road Naming Policy R855‐05 At the May Environment Committee meeting a recommendation was made that a new policy be developed to enable a more consistent approach to road naming. A draft policy had been prepared and was before the Committee for consideration and approval. Clrs Cairns/Barker: That a new road naming policy be adopted, as follows:
ROAD NAMING POLICY 1. That proposed road names are to be referred to all Marlborough Iwi and a copy sent to the Maori Advisory Komiti.
2. That proposed names be submitted with the application for subdivision consent, in order that names are approved prior to the 224 certification.
3. That duplication of names not be allowed where the same or similar name occurs within the Marlborough District. (Reference is to be made to a current street list when selecting names to avoid duplication.)
4. That two suggested names for each proposed public or private road be submitted. (The names are to be listed in order of preference.)
5. That the background to the names, their origins and their link with the area be supplied.
6. That where more than one road is being created in a subdivision, a common theme is recommended for the names.
7. That names be chosen in proportion to the length of the road. (Long names on short cul-de- sacs can be very difficult to display on a map.)
8. That road names be short (as a guide, 15 characters of less), single words, which are readily pronounced and spelt to satisfy the requirements of emergency services.
9. That personal names be discouraged unless the name submitted has an historical connection with the property being subdivided, or is that of a well known local identity or prominent Marlburian or New Zealander.
10. That the policy in Picton for using native tree and bird names be continued where appropriate.
11. That road type terms such as “road”, “street”, “lane” etc be used in circumstances appropriate to the physical situation with the following definitions acting as a guide:
Avenue Wide straight roadway or street planted both sides with trees. Close A no exit road, short in length serving a small number of properties, similar to a Place. Crescent A crescent shaped street generally with both ends intersecting with the same street.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 37 Drive A main connecting route in a suburb. A road with scenic attraction - a scenic road. Esplanade Levelled ground for a public promenade. Gardens An attractively landscaped cul-de-sac or crescent. (New definition approved 29 April 2004 R.03/04.654) Glade Tree covered street or passage between trees. Glen In a narrow valley. Grove An alleyway cut in a wood but not extensive. Heights A road with an elevated view. Hill Applies to a feature rather than the route. Lane A narrow passage between hedges or buildings, an alley. Mews A court or close - a paved area surrounded by buildings. Parade A road for marching or public thoroughfare. Place A no exit road, longer than a Close with a turning circle at its blind end. Quay Along a waterfront. Rise An elevated street. Road Route or way between places. Street Any road. Terrace A street along the face or top of a slope. View Street with a view. Walk A narrow passage similar to a Lane. Way A private access way or right of way.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 38 Appendix E AS/NZS 4819:2011
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 39
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 40 12. Appointment of Hearings Commissioners
(Report prepared by Abbey McMillan) R450-004-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to present the following persons for inclusion on the list of Hearings Commissioners.
Background 2. Under the Marlborough District Council Resource Management Act 1991 Instrument of Delegation, the Council may delegate its function as a consent authority to a Hearings Commissioner.
3. Hearings Commissioners can be called on to hear and determine applications for resource consent pursuant to section 34A of the Resource Management Act, 1991.
Comments 4. This list of Hearings Commissioners can be beneficially extended with the inclusion of the following persons as below:
Justine Bray 5. Justine is a professional planner with over 25 years’ experience in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam with expertise in both environmental and social impact assessment. Justine is currently working as a Technical Principal Planner at Opus International Consultants Limited.
6. Over 15 years of Hearings Panel and Chairperson experience.
7. Justine holds a Bachelor of Arts (University of Auckland), Master of Arts, Honours (University of Auckland) and a Master of Arts (University of Guelph, Canada).
8. Justine has a current Making Good Decisions accreditation with a Chairpersons endorsement (31 December 2018). Justine is a trainer for the Making Good Decisions programme facilitated by Opus International Consultants Limited through the Ministry for the Environment.
9. Justine is a full member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.
10. Please find the attached CV for further consideration.
Prudence Steven 11. Prudence currently works as Queen’s Counsel. 12. Prudence holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Canterbury and was admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand in 1993. 13. Prudence has a broad experience and a good depth of knowledge and practical application in Resource Management Law/Local Government Law, having practised solely in these areas since August 1993. She has had experience at all levels of representation before District and Regional Council hearings, and in the Environment Court, High Court and Court of Appeal on a wide range of resource management issues, representing both private clients and local authorities. 14. Matters on which Prudence has acted as adviser and counsel encompass (and not limited to): residential, industrial, retail and other commercial land development proposals, aquaculture, designations, forestry, water quality and quantity and hydro-electricity. 15. Prudence is a current member of the Resource Management Law Association and the New Zealand Bar Association. 16. Please find the attached CV for further consideration.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 41 Summary 17. The Council has the discretion to decide who they employ as an independent Commissioner. The above persons meet the accreditation requirements of section 39A of the Resource Management Act 1991 and are not a member of the Council or Council staff.
18. Any further expressions of interest to be included as a Council Hearings Commissioner will be forwarded to the Environment Committee for consideration.
19. The Council is not bound to employ the services of a Commissioner once they are appointed before Full Council.
RECOMMENDED That Ms Justine Bray and Ms Prudence Steven be appointed to act as Hearings Commissioners as and when required and that they be advised accordingly.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 42
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 43 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 44 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 45
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 46 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 47 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 48
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 49 13. Delegation under Section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974
(Report prepared by Kaye McIlveney & Bill East) L150-003-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for delegation of responsibilities, powers and duties under section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974 to the Chief Executive with approval for those responsibilities, powers and duties to be sub-delegated to staff.
Delegation of Functions, Responsibilities and Powers 2. In the absence of a delegation, decisions on these matters would be required to be made by Full Council resolution. As many of these matters are operational in nature, it is considered appropriate that they be delegated to the Chief Executive and sub-delegated by the Chief Executive to appropriate staff.
3. Under section 459, the Council may require the owner of any land to provide a private drain and to connect a private drain to a public drain or a watercourse or the sea. The section also includes the power for the Council to require a landowner to— a) Clean or repair a private drain; b) Alter the course, direction and outfall of a private drain; c) Provide traps, ventilation and other fittings in or to a private drain; d) Connect or disconnect fixtures and fittings from a private drain; e) Separating stormwater drainage from sewerage; and f) Do other things that may be necessary to achieve efficient drainage on properties. If the landowner does not do the works required, the Council may do the works itself and recover the costs (plus 10% for supervision of the work and interest) from the landowner.
4. Both Building Control and the Assets & Services operations and maintenance staff regularly come across properties where the drains are inadequate, non-existent or failing due to lack of maintenance and repair. This power is necessary for them to ensure the efficient drainage of properties and to remedy situations where other properties are affected by the inadequate, non-existent or failing drains.
Summary 5. In the absence of a delegation, decisions on these matters would be required to be made by Full Council resolution. It is considered appropriate that these operational matters be delegated to the Chief Executive and from the Chief Executive to staff to exercise on behalf of the Council.
RECOMMENDED 1. That the Council delegate its powers, duties and responsibilities under section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974 to the Chief Executive; and 2. That the Council give approval to the Chief Executive to sub-delegate those powers, duties and responsibilities to appropriate staff.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 50 14. Industrial Discharge Monitoring Report
(Report prepared by Graeme Nelson) E365-000-002
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the Environmental Protection Group’s monitoring project of discharges from a variety of industrial/commercial sites. (Refer Appendix 1)
2. The report outlines the results of monitoring and what improvements occurred as a consequence. It also discusses the overall relationship with consent holders and future monitoring activities.
3. Graeme Nelson will provide a short presentation on Industrial Discharge Monitoring. (5 minutes).
RECOMMENDED That the report be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 51 Appendix 1
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 52
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 53 15. Cleanfill and Quarry Monitoring Report
(Report prepared by Graeme Nelson) E360-002-003-04
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the Environmental Protection Group’s monitoring project of cleanfill and quarry activities.
2. The report outlines the results of monitoring and what improvements occurred as a consequence. It also discusses the overall relationship with consent holders and future monitoring activities.
3. Graeme Nelson will provide a short presentation on Cleanfill and Quarry Monitoring. (10 minutes).
Background Where Monitoring Occurred in 2016 4. Cleanfill and Quarry sites are included in the Environmental Protection Group’s active strategic monitoring programme.
5. Cleanfills: Monitoring of nine active cleanfills throughout Marlborough occurred in April/May and October/November 2016. Two on-site inspections of each site were undertaken. One additional site which is no longer operating is monitored for groundwater quality purposes.
6. Quarries: Monitoring occurred at six active quarries in the Awatere Valley, Ward, Omaka Valley, and Picton.
Figure 6: Cleanfill and quarry sites monitored in 2016. How Monitoring is undertaken 7. Quarries and Cleanfill sites monitored are either operating under Resource Consent, Certificate of Compliance or Existing Use Rights. The sites are monitored against resource consent conditions or the Permitted Activity standards of the Wairau/Awatere Resource Management Plan (WARMP) and the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP).
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 54 Cleanfills Materials on site are checked against the WARMP and MSRMP definition for ‘cleanfill’. These include soil and rock, and other inert materials such as concrete and brick. Cleanfill material is to be free of combustible, putrescible, degradable or leachable components, and hazardous substances. Cleanfill records are checked where required Stormwater controls Compliance with volume limitations and location of infilling Site security Compliance with cleanfill management strategies The Ministry for the Environment ‘A Guide to the Management of Cleanfills (2002)’
Quarries Noise mitigation measures Dust suppression and fire safety measures Sediment control Tonnages extracted and vehicle movements Management plan compliance Appropriate disposal of non-biodegradable waste
8. As with other monitoring projects in the Environmental Protection Group, the traffic light system is used for determining compliance with consent conditions or permitted activity standards checked during the inspection. Green is compliant and no further action is required; Yellow is technical non-compliance such as insufficient record keeping; Orange is minor environmental non-compliance where corrective actions are required; Red is for significant environmental non-compliance such as a significant breach of best practice causing an environmental effect.
Monitoring Results Cleanfills 9. The dumping of non-authorised material, along with contaminated soil, can lead to contamination of cleanfill sites. New generation consents have requirements for sampling and soil analysis of buried materials, so that sites can be monitored more closely. These conditions are designed to mitigate potential environmental effects especially in sensitive receiving environments, such as waterways. This enables potential remediation to occur within the life-time of the consent, should unacceptable levels of contamination be detected.
10. All active cleanfills were checked twice in 2016. A compliance report for all consent conditions is provided to the cleanfill operator following the April/May site inspection. Following the second inspection in October/November, a smaller report is provided to the operator which covers only those conditions relevant at the time of the inspection. For example if there is a consent condition relating to work required post filling stage, this condition is not reported on as it is not yet relevant to the operation.
11. The compliance ratings shown in Figure 7 show that the majority of cleanfills were compliant with all consent conditions at the time of the on-site inspection in May 2016. The reasons for minor non-compliance included non-cleanfill material being on site and stormwater controls requiring maintenance. Correspondence with the cleanfill operators requests these issues are remediated when the compliance report is sent to them. If necessary, follow up inspections are completed.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 55 Cleanfill Inspections May 2016
Compliant Technical non‐compliance Minor non‐compliance Significant non‐compliance
33% 56% 11%
Figure 7: Cleanfill Inspections
12. Cleanfill inspections in November are currently being completed, at the time of this report seven sites have been inspected and full compliance has been achieved at all of them.
13. The amount of non-cleanfill material such as metals, plastics, household waste and treated timber has reduced compared with that noted in the 2014 and 2015 monitoring events. The current concern regarding cleanfill material is the origin of soil being brought on site. Council’s Environmental Protection Group are currently focusing on ensuring sites are recording where material is being brought from and checking the HAIL status of the origin of the fill material. Record keeping and material checks have improved in 2016 however there are still some sites that lack consistency.
14. The Environmental Protection Group is now using Chrome Auzoroul S Dye, this shows the presence of copper when sprayed onto a product. If copper is present, the spray will turn blue, if there is no copper present the spray will remain a dark brown/red colour. This is being used to check whether any wood products on site have been treated with CCA (copper, chrome, arsenic) and should be removed from the site.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 56
Figure 8: Examples of non-cleanfill materials identified during the 2016 cleanfill inspections. Quarries 15. The main effects of quarry activity are impacts on amenity and roading infrastructure, from truck movements. These are generally managed by the setting of appropriate consent conditions. Consequently, effects on local amenity can be managed. With several exceptions, landscape effects of quarries are often minimal due to their location in secluded valleys. Dust and noise effects are therefore minimal due to distance from sensitive receiving environments.
16. Compliance with consent conditions of the six quarries inspected was generally satisfactory. Issues with vehcile movements in 2015 appear to have improved this reporting year. Records had not been provided by one quarry therefore they were rated technical non-compliant. Council is still waiting on this information.
Figure 9: Compliance ratings for Quarries 2016
17. Noise mitigation, dust suppression, sediment traps and stormwater controls were addressed and maintained at all quarries inspected. There have been complaints received by Council regarding vehicle movements on public roads from a quarry. This has been addressed with the quarry operator. This is a timely reminder that consent holders must ensure that all contractors operating from their consented site must be aware of the consent conditions and comply with these conditions at all times.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 57
Figure 10: Examples of sediment retention ponds on quarries
Relationships with property owners 18. Cleanfill and quarry operators have responded positively to the traffic light rating system as it clearly identifies areas of non-compliance and allows operators to remediate minor non-compliance issues and improve the management of the site.
Comments 19. Cleanfills are monitored bi-annually due to the amount of activity occurring. There is still improvement required by cleanfill operators in regards to record keeping of origin of the cleanfill material. The Environmental Protection Group is working with the Science and Monitoring team to better inform cleanfill operators of their requirements regarding cleanfill guidelines.
20. It is anticipated that ongoing communication and on-site inspections with the cleanfill and quarry operators will lead to greater understanding of the requirements for the land use activities which will result in more sites being fully compliant. The emphasis with both activities is to ensure that good systems are in place to prevent or adequately mitigate the environmental effects of the activity.
21. A snapshot report of the Quarry and Cleanfill monitoring programme is in development, this will be published on Council’s website for public access when completed.
22. Further guidance/educational material for Cleanfill and Quarry operators is in development.
Summary 23. The monitoring results indicate an increased rate of compliance when compared with the 2015 monitoring year. Cleanfill and quarry operators have been willing to work with the Council to achieve better environmental outcomes for the sites they operate from and the surrounding area.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 58
Figure 11: May 2015 vs. 2016 Compliance Ratings for Cleanfills
24. The downward trend of compliance may be explained because continued issues carrying over from last year and the marked focus on record keeping in 2016. As previously stated the amount of non-cleanfill materials being stored on sites has reduced compared to previous years though. Furthermore, the current round of monitoring is showing a trend towards full compliance for the nine sites monitored.
Figure 12: 2015 vs. 2016 Compliance Ratings for Quarries
25. The downward trend of compliance may be explained because less sites were monitored and previously monitored sites were not visited this year because of their high rates of compliance last year and minimal effects. 26. The Environmental Protection Group will continue to take a proactive approach to monitoring both cleanfill and quarry activities. The quarries monitored this year will continue to be monitored to ensure compliance continues. Other quarries which are monitored less frequently will be also monitored in 2017. Cleanfills will continue to be monitored on a bi-annual basis. 27. Further education regarding acceptable cleanfill materials will be an emphasis for cleanfill monitoring. Particular attention to the origin of materials being brought on site will be a focus for the 2017 monitoring programme.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 59 16. Winery Solid Waste Update (Report prepared by Gina Ferguson) E330-002-004
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update of Council’s staff involvement in industry consultation and guidance to achieve improved environmental outcome from winery solid waste storage (grape marc).
Background 2. In September 2016 Compliance staff reported to Council’s Environment Committee on winery wastewater and solid waste monitoring and environmental incidences from unsuitable solid waste storage.
3. Significant environmental effects resulting from solid waste storage (grape marc) and leachate discharge were reported at four separate locations, primarily at locations where grape marc had been brought onsite from a number of wineries.
4. The environmental effects observed were a result of insufficient leachate and solid waste containment systems resulting in discharge of contaminates to land and water.
5. The proposed Marlborough Environment Plan (MEP) has permitted activity rules for the storage of agricultural solid waste and making of compost. This discharge of concentrate leachate is not a permitted discharge under the MEP.
Environmental Effects 6. The environmental effects from winery solid waste and leachate detected included contamination of waterways and drinking water supplies.
7. Organic pollution from winery solid waste storage was detected in two waterways resulting in Sphaerotilus commonly known as “sewage fungus” (Figure 13). This bacterium requires organic waste to feed on and has been associated with leakages/discharges of raw sewage, silage pit leachates, and wastes from dairy factories, meat processing plants and grape marc leachate.
Figure 13: Photos of sewage fungus.
8. Manganese and Arsenic contamination from grape marc leachate entering groundwater was detected in two locations. Because of its reducing nature, grape marc leachate mobilises and leaches contaminants from the ground.
9. Contamination levels were above the NZ drinking water standards.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 60 Consultation 10. Since the identification of winery solid waste and leachate environmental incidence, Council has met with Sustainable Winegrowers NZ and Wine Marlborough to raise Council’s concerns, discuss industry requirements and communication to the industry on the issue.
11. New Zealand Winegrowers subsequently initiated a wine industry meeting in Marlborough to discuss the issue and industry solutions. The meeting was well attended by industry.
12. Council’s Compliance Manager and Solid Waste Manager attended the meeting and provided an overview of the environmental issues, plan rules and regulatory requirements.
13. A desire to find solutions and resolve the issue was demonstrated by industry attendees.
Guidance and Code of Practice 14. New Zealand Winegrowers currently have a publication “Code of Practice for Winery Waste Management, May 2010” this includes methods for managing leachate from stockpiled grape marc and composting operations.
15. Pre-vintage guidance documentation is currently in development by Council, it is intended to be completed and provided to New Zealand Winegrowers and wider industry before the end of the year.
16. Guidance documents will include MEP rules, regulations and environmental risks.
17. Council will pursue industry workshops once guidance documentation is finalised.
18. Council will be undertaking monitoring of solid agricultural waste as part of the annual vintage monitoring programme; this will include investigations of offsite solid waste storage locations.
Summary 19. As the Marlborough wine industry continues to expand, so does the volume of winery waste. Like any other industry, the wine industry is responsible for finding satisfactory ways of dealing with its waste.
20. Winery solid waste (grape marc) and leachate can have significant adverse effects on land and/or water if not stored appropriately.
21. Winery solid waste (grape marc) is an industry issue which needs careful management to ensure that there are no further adverse environmental effects.
22. The Compliance Group is continuing to take a proactive and stewardship approach to monitoring winery solid waste and leachate with guidance material, relationship building and graduated enforcement response, with the key objective being the absence of adverse environmental effects.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 61 17. Dog Owner Satisfaction Survey Results
(Clr Arbuckle) (Report prepared by Gina Ferguson) E360-006-02
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the results of Council’s Dog Owner satisfaction Survey.
2. Gina Ferguson will provide a short presentation on the Dog Owner Satisfaction Survey. (10 minutes).
Background 3. Council instigated a new survey of dog owners. (A copy of the survey is appended to this report)
4. The survey was designed to receive feedback from dog owners on the services provided by Council and their contractor for dog control functions.
5. Council designed the survey for feedback and to identify areas for improvement:
a) Forms and payment options. b) Awareness of operating hours during registration and microchipping promotion. c) How dog owners receive registration information. d) Accessibility of dog information on Council’s website. e) Need for increased educational material in any particular area. f) The media platform of preference for dog related information. g) The overall performance of the dog control services.
6. A copy of the survey was included in the dog registration packs which are sent to owners in June each year.
7. Survey results were entered and analysed.
Survey Results Summary 8. Council received 1034 responses to the survey.
9. The overall satisfaction of animal control services by dog owners was:
a) 39.1% Very Satisfied b) 50.5% Satisfied c) 3.1% Unsatisfied d) 1.85% Very Unsatisfied
10. 90.5% found the registration documentation easy to very easy to understand.
11. 98.3% clearly understood payment options available.
12. 98% clearly understood the date registration was required by.
13. Only 22% of dog owners were aware of Animal Control’s extended hours during registration.
14. Only 28% of dog owners were aware of the microchip promotion run during registration.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 62 15. The majority of dog owners responded they heard about registration from the registration forms they received via post 63.8%, the second highest method was newspapers at 30.8%.
16. 57% of dog owners knew where to look on Council’s website for relevant information.
17. 58% of dog owners considered there was enough educational material provided by Council or Animal Control, 10% didn’t know if there was enough material.
18. Of those dog owners who didn’t consider there was enough education information available, 62% of responses (note more than one option could be selected) wanted more information on dog exercise areas, 42.4% of responses wanted more information on dog owner obligations.
19. When asked where they would like further information made available, 43% of responses were newspapers, 29% social media, 29% Council website, 32% newsletters and 19% radio (note more than one option could be selected).
Proposed programme in response to survey 20. An area identified by the survey for improved advertising was Animal Control’s extended hours and microchip programme over registration. An advertisement strategy to address this will be implemented.
21. Increased education material will be developed in response to the survey, the method of advertising this information will consider the responses from dog owners on their preferred media platforms.
22. It is proposed to implement the dog satisfaction survey on an annual basis to run with registration.
23. The next survey will include a question on dog owner registration preference for electronic or hard copy documentation.
Summary 24. A dog owner satisfaction survey was undertaken, 89.6% of dog owner survey responses were Satisfied or Very Satisfied with Council Animal Control services.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 63
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 64 Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 65
18. Forestry Monitoring Report
(Report prepared by Mark Spencer) E335-003-002-01
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the Compliance Group’s ongoing monitoring programme of forest land disturbance and harvesting activities for the period 1 October 2015 - October 2016.
2. It provides an overview of where the Compliance Group monitored, how monitoring is undertaken and the rating system used to determine compliance status with plan rules and resource consents.
3. It also discusses the results of the monitoring programme and outlines any observations or improvements noticed during monitoring inspections.
Background Where monitoring occurred 4. Forestry is included in the Compliance Group’s active strategic monitoring programme.
5. Compliance staff undertook 36 monitoring inspections in 27 forestry blocks during the yearlong reporting period. Staff inspected the operations of 10 forestry companies and one private land owner. These forests cover 7,515 hectares and represent approximately 9% of planted forests in Marlborough. Monitoring occurred within forestry blocks where earthworks and harvesting had recently occurred.
6. Figure 14 below maps the forestry blocks in Marlborough and highlights the locations where monitoring occurred (in red). The table in provides a list of the forestry blocks monitored and the graph in Appendix B outlines the number of compliant skid sites within each block.
Figure 14: Map of the forestry blocks monitored in Marlborough during 2015-2016
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 66 How monitoring is undertaken 7. Forestry related land disturbance consents and forest harvesting permitted under the Wairau/Awatere Resource Management Plan (WARMP), the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (MSRMP) and the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan (MEP) were monitored.
8. The resource consent conditions and permitted activity standards monitored in each forestry block included:
a) Harvest plans for skid site (harvest processing areas), road and track placement. b) Water control (culverts, water tables) installation and effectiveness. c) Land stability (slash placement and recovery, skid benching and drainage). d) Waterway blockages (woody debris in waterways and setbacks).
9. The number of monitoring inspections required in each forestry block depends on the size and duration of the harvesting operation. Recurrent visits are undertaken in the larger blocks. When possible, monitoring is scheduled towards the end of the harvesting operation to ensure that the block is left in an adequate state.
10. Compliance staff encourages the involvement of forestry owners/managers during the monitoring process. The owners/managers are invited to accompany Compliance staff during inspections for effective monitoring outcomes.
11. Forestry blocks are inspected against a set of parameters that align with the Council permitted activity standards, resource consent conditions and industry best practice guidelines. Each skid site is individually inspected for remedial works. All inspected aspects (including the skid sites, roading, tracking, waterway setbacks etc) are combined and the forestry block is assigned a compliance status. So effectively a block may have several compliant skid sites but could still require remedial action due to a minor issue such as a blocked culvert.
12. A paperless system is used to monitor the forestry blocks. All roading and tracking is logged with GPS units and overlaid against consented harvest plans. Software on mobile devices (Ipad’s) are used to record and photograph all skid sites utilised during the harvesting operation. Lastly, a skid site checklist on the Ipad completes the monitoring report which can be emailed straight to the forest manager/owner, while on site.
13. A traffic light system is used for determining whether a forestry operation is in compliance with its consent following our initial monitoring inspection. Green is compliant and no action is required, Orange means minor remedial actions are needed and Red is non-compliant i.e. significant remedial actions are required.
14. A snapshot report for forestry monitoring is in development. This will be provided on Council’s website for public access.
Discussion Monitoring results 15. During this reporting period, a total of 181 skid site inspections were undertaken within 27 forestry blocks. Some skid sites were monitored more than once if remedial works were required to bring them into a compliant state. A total 107 (59%) skid site inspections where assessed as Green, 74 (41%) Orange and 0 Red.
16. Of the 27 forestry blocks, 1 (3%) was fully compliant after the first monitoring visit and required no remedial works or further inspections. This is a significant decrease from 41% during the 2014-2015 reporting period.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 67 17. The level of compliance for skid site inspections has decreased by 20% from last year’s monitoring period (Figure 15). There were no non-compliant skid sites for the 2015/2016 period. This is close to half the inspected skids requiring remedial works of some description. The monitoring programme for forestry blocks has been in place consistently now for eight years. After eight years of monitoring you would expect a greater number of compliant skid sites. What is pleasing though is the absence of any non-compliant skid sites.
Figure 15: Compliance status of skid sites monitored in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016
18. For those assessed as Green, examples of good practice are highlighted below in Figure 16 and Figure 17. Figure 16 shows an example of a skid site with extensive post-harvest works to the outside fill material. The fill has been pulled back and stored on stable ground and the remaining area has been compacted to reduce the likelihood of tension cracking.
Figure 16: Excellent post-harvest remedial works on a skid site
19. Figure 17 shows an example of forestry tracking that has been successfully pulled back / recovered. If done well, the ground profile will return close to that before excavation. Stormwater can then flow freely downslope over the recovered tracking. Vegetation regrows over the fill to conceal the once highly visible tracking.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 68
Figure 17: Example of tracking that has been recovered successfully
20. For the blocks assessed as Orange, examples of corrective actions undertaken included: the installation sediment controls, road water controls (Figure 18), the repair of tension cracks in fill material and removing woody debris from permanently flowing waterways (Figure 19).
Figure 18: Example of cut-offs installed on a forest road in Nikau Bay as a form of water control. Frequent cut-offs reduce the erosive effects of stormwater as the water is not able to gain momentum.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 69
Figure 19: Before and after photographs showing the removal of woody debris from a permantantly flowing waterway in Port Underwood
21. The basis for the classification of the Red non-compliant blocks included: lack of water controls, unconsented tracking and machinery in a waterbody (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Example of a non-compliant block due to a significant incident. In this case a bulldozer was driven into the foreshore in Tory Channel.
22. Water controls on approximately 187km of forestry roads were also monitored. The installation of water tables with culverts or cut-offs on both forestry roads and tracking is now common practice. Remedial works were often required to maintain the water controls in place. This was less of a problem within the larger blocks where forestry managers are onsite regularly and are able to inspect the measures in place.
23. The use of four infringement notices and one formal warning was required during the 12 month reporting period. The reason for this enforcement action was for blocks with unconsented tracking (Figure 21) and poor harvesting practices that lead to sedimentation of adjoining waterbodies.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 70
Figure 21: Ground based tracking undertaken within forestry blocks outside of that permitted by the applicable resource consents
Observations and Developments 24. The Compliance Group now owns an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to capture video and still footage during monitoring inspections. This has proved to be an effective tool that saves time whilst on site. Staff are now able to capture footage from an angle that is not possible on foot.
25. Tension cracking on the outside of forest roading and skid site platforms is still a recurring problem when the blocks are not actively managed post-harvest. For those blocks that are actively managed, monitoring inspections are now undertaken several months after the completion of the post-harvest works. This gives the fill time to settle and it becomes easier to identify any weak areas that are likely to collapse in a heavy rain event.
26. Compliance staff observed a decrease in harvesting related damage to remnant native pockets within forestry blocks. The installation of secondary flood flow paths on minor and major culverted stream crossings has also improved. These allow flood flows to remain within the stream bed in the event of a blocked culvert.
27. Over recent years Compliance staff have noticed a higher standard of post-harvest works on skid sites. In order to protect their own investment, forest owners and managers are pulling back birdnests from skid edges, installing skid drainage and benching skid sites. These measures combined with a kind winter have significantly reduced the frequency of skid site failures within the region.
28. Council staff visited five significant failures during this reporting period. It is currently a rule in the MEP that all significant forestry failures be notified to the Council within two working days. Figure 22 shows aerial views of 2 of the 5 failures. Inspections are undertaken to gain a better understanding of the likely causes of the failures.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 71
Figure 22: An example of two failures that Council staff inspected during the 2015-2016 reporting period
29. The cause of the five failures differed, however, a common occurrence was the presence of weak soils and subsurface flows close to excavated or filled areas (Figure 23). Two failures that were only 3kms apart but within different forestry blocks occurred in the Onamalutu Valley. Both occurred on remediated skid sites and were subject to what would be considered as normal rain events.
Figure 23: Origin of a failure that occurred above the Croisilles–French Pass Road. The red circle highlights subsurface flows that would have contributed to the cause of the failure.
30. The Council currently aims to monitor all forestry blocks where harvesting has been undertaken as well as all reported significant failures. It was planned to review this monitoring approach when the compliance rating of skid sites and land disturbance increased to a specified percentage. However, this has not occurred and there has actually been a decrease in compliance over the 2015-2016 reporting period.
31. Therefore the Compliance Group considers that forest managers and owners still need to be more familiar with the permitted activities standards and resource consent conditions for the disturbance of land associated with forest harvesting. A monitoring presence by Compliance staff is an essential ingredient in achieving this goal.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 72 Summary 32. Monitoring results indicate a decrease in both the initial compliance status and skid site compliance when compared with previous years, within an industry willing to work with the Council to achieving better environmental outcomes. The overall compliance status of two forestry blocks was significantly non-compliant from the 27 inspected. No individual skid sites were assessed as significantly non-compliant.
33. Two significant failures occurred on similar soils within the Onamalutu Valley, originating from skid sites that would have been compliant. Thought is required on either a change in harvesting techniques or regulatory controls that will reduce the chance of such failures in the future.
34. Compliance staff will continue to monitor the resource consent conditions and permitted activity standards associated with the harvesting of Marlborough forests. It is proposed to reassess the forestry monitoring programme when a skid site compliance rating of 90% and first time visit compliance rating of 75% is achieved.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 73 Appendix A
Appendix B
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 74 19. Aids to Navigation
(Report prepared by the Harbour Master) H100-005-14
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the on-going management of Aids to Navigation (AtoNs).
Background 2. The Council is responsible for the provision and servicing of 98 AtoN in the region which include beacons, buoys, channel markers and leading lights. The collective replacement cost of these units is estimated at 1.45 million as of May 2016.
3. These AtoN are a critical component of the Harbour Safety Management System and their operation must comply with international standards as set by the International Light House Authority (IALA). Requirements include minimum response times to rectify light failures, prescribed inspection routines and the establishment of an accurate performance data recording programme.
4. The management of AtoNs was brought ‘in house’ and carried out internally by the Harbour Master’s Team.
AtoNs Update: November 2016 5. Four failures have occurred since the previous report was submitted. Sites of failure were One Tree North, Motukina Point, Allports Island and Keep Clear Rock (unlit). All lit beacons were repaired in sufficient time to ensure compliance with IALA AtoN availability requirements.
6. Repairs to Keep Clear Rock require mobilisation of a barge and pile driving equipment. This is dependent on operator availability and weather.
7. Allports Island continues to be a challenging site for solar energy. Options are being considered to relocate the solar panel.
8. Work on defining the lighting requirements in the Queen Charlotte Sound east of Dieffenbach Pt. continues and is being informed by the Harbours Risk Assessment.
9. An AtoN management and monitoring database developed by ISOVIST has not met the required standard. Options are being considered with regard to finding an alternate supplier.
Conclusion 10. IALA standards for all lit navigation aids have been achieved for the past six weeks.
Note: IALA specifies 3 categories for AtoN. ‘Category 1’ AtoNs are defined as being ‘of primary navigational significance’ and have the highest availability requirement. Tory Channel Leading lights are the only Category 1 AtoN under the Council control. Over 90% of AtoNs under the Council control are listed Category 2 being defined by IALA as ‘of navigational significance’.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 75 20. Marine Farm Light Audits
(Report prepared by the Harbour Master) H100-004-03
Purpose 1. The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the ongoing marine farm light audits that are being carried out.
Background 2. Conditions of consent attached to individual marine farm consents dictate the lighting requirement for each farm.
3. The Harbour Master audits every marine farm in the waters of the Marlborough Harbour at least once every three years. This requires a site visit of at least 200 marine farms annually.
4. The establishment of a marine farm lighting audit system has resulted in improved compliance in all areas of the Sounds.
5. Work is being undertaken to ensure that the cumulative lighting requirements of multiple farms in a bay do not exceed navigational safety requirements. Crail Bay provides the first example of a bay wide lighting solution. The Harbour Master will continue working closely with the Marine Farming Association on this to look at options for improving the marine farm lighting for the purpose of navigation safety.
Discussion 6. There have been no marine farm audits undertaken since the last committee meeting. This is normal for this time of year due to routine preparation for the summer boating season.
7. Audits will recommence in the coming weeks.
RECOMMENDED That the information be received.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 76 21. Information Package
RECOMMENDED That the Regulatory Department Information Package dated 24 November 2016 be received and noted.
Environment - 24 November 2016 - Page 77