Agenda of Infrastructure Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Infrastructure Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

9.30am

Level 2 reception lounge
Auckland Town Hall

301-303 Queen Street

Auckland

Infrastructure Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Mike Lee
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Chris Darby
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Bill Cashmore
	Cr Ross Clow
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Liane Ngamane
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	Glenn Wilcox
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

(Quorum 7 members)

Barbara Watson

Democracy Advisor

26 November 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629

Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Those powers which cannot legally be delegated:

(a) the power to make a rate; or

(b) the power to make a bylaw; or

(c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long term council community plan; or

(d) the power to adopt a long term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e) the power to appoint a Chief Executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Additional responsibilities retained by the Governing Body:

(a) Approval of a draft long term plan or draft annual plan prior to community consultation

(b) Approval of a draft bylaw prior to community consultation

(c) Resolutions required to be made by a local authority under the Local Electoral Act 2001, including the appointment of electoral officer

(d) Adoption of, and amendment to, the Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

(e) Relationships with the Independent Maori Statutory Board, including the funding agreement and appointments to committees.

(f) Approval of the Unitary Plan

(g) Overview of the implementation of the Auckland Plan through setting direction on key strategic projects (e.g. the City Rail Link and the alternative funding mechanisms for transport) and receiving regular reporting on the overall achievement of Auckland Plan priorities and performance measures.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

· Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

· Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

· Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

· In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

· The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

· However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

· All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

· All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

· Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

· Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB)

· Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.

· Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

CCOs

· Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the CCO.

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday 21 October 2014, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.

Infrastructure Committee

03 December 2014

Greater Tamaki Consolidated Receiving Environment Stormwater Network Discharge Consent Prioritisation Consultation Results

File No.: CP2014/27150

Purpose

1. To inform the Infrastructure Committee about the Greater Tāmaki Consolidated Receiving Environment stormwater priorities consultation process and to provide a summary of the outcomes following consultation.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council sought stakeholder feedback on priorities for stormwater management in the Greater Tāmaki consolidated receiving environment (CRE) (i.e. the area of land draining to a coastal receiving environment).

3. The Greater Tāmaki CRE stormwater network discharge consent application focusses on stormwater priorities within the urban areas of the Greater Tāmaki CRE Harbour consolidated receiving environment.

4. Seven stormwater issues were identified for consultation within the Greater Tāmaki CRE as follows:

· managing infrastructure and assets,

· managing growth,

· managing flooding (or the risk of flooding),

· urban stream management,

· contamination of the marine environment,

· managing stormwater discharges to groundwater, and

· stormwater effects on the wastewater network.

5. From September 2013 to March 2014 Auckland Council undertook consultation and the process focused on two specific questions:

a) From the stormwater issues identified, what do you think are the priorities for the Greater Tāmaki CRE and what must be most urgently addressed?

b) From the stormwater unit’s responsibilities, what do you think are the criteria that Council should use for selecting stormwater management priorities?

6. Stakeholders consulted included local boards, Auckland Council staff, advisory panels, iwi, business, community and environmental groups, national government and council controlled organisations. A summary of feedback received is provided in this report and within Attachment A.

7. Feedback from the consultation process highlighted that contamination of the Tāmaki Estuary and the coastal inlets should be prioritised and most urgently addressed by Auckland Council. This was followed very closely by managing urban streams.

8. The feedback received from the consultation process has been summarised in a Consultation Outcomes Report, and will help to inform the setting of priorities for the network consent application. Based on priority issues and the selected criteria for prioritisation, a best practicable option approach to managing stormwater discharges from the public network will be developed.

9. The feedback received will be further consolidated and considered in the application document for an Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent. Auckland Council’s stormwater unit will formally lodge this consent with Auckland Council’s regulatory arm in early 2015, pending completion of consultation on all CREs.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) receive the report.

Discussion

Background

10. The Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent provides an opportunity to create a framework for managing and mitigating identified effects to Auckland’s stream and coastal environment through the operation, maintenance and upgrade of its public stormwater network.

11. It is neither practically possible nor affordable to address all the negative effects of stormwater discharges, including existing effects, within the next 35 years (the duration of a stormwater network consent). Effort and resources therefore need to be directed to where we can make the most difference, in accordance with identified priorities.

The Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent

12. The Greater Tāmaki CRE covers around 19,300 ha and contains some of the earliest, and most intensely urbanised areas in New Zealand. Today, around 26% of the entire Tamaki catchment, and 43% of urban land, is covered by impervious, built structures. There are 14 sub-catchments, and approximately 1,730 km of stormwater drains (including pipes, ditches and open drains), 29,204 manholes and 19,929 catchpits.

13. Auckland Council is required under the Resource Management Act (1991) to obtain resource consents to discharge stormwater from the region’s stormwater network into the natural environment. Under the Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water and the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, stormwater discharge consents from the public stormwater network are called stormwater network discharge consents.

14. As a transformation initiative arising from the amalgamation of the Auckland Council, an application for an Auckland-wide Network Discharge Consent is being prepared. An overview of this Auckland-wide Network Discharge Consent will be provided to the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) in the coming months.

15. The consultation outcomes on the Greater Tāmaki CRE will be used to inform the Auckland-wide Network Discharge Consent application. The Greater Tamaki CRE (See Figure 1) was chosen as focal point for consultation as it is an important resource to the long term wellbeing and interests of a large number of people.

16. Similar exercises have been completed for Waitematā and are underway in Manukau Harbour. Consultation outcomes for the Waitematā Harbour CRE were received by the Environment and Sustainability Forum, the Regional Development and Operations Committee, and the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

Figure 1: Location of the Greater Tāmaki consolidated receiving environment

The Consultation Process

17. A Consultation Plan was developed and identified the following key stakeholders:

(a) Local Boards (six local boards were identified)

(b) Ward Councillors

(d) Internal Auckland Council staff

(e) Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs - Auckland Transport, Watercare, Auckland Council Property, Regional Facilities, Ports of Auckland)

(f) Iwi (fourteen iwi groups were identified as being interested in the project)

(g) Central government departments (a number of departments were identified, such as the Ministries for the Environment, Primary Industries, Housing New Zealand)

(g) Environmental and Recreational interest groups (such as Forest and Bird, the Environmental Defence Society, Harbour Clean-up Trust, Sustainable Coastlines, The Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum, Chinese Conservation Education Trust)

(h) Community and Business interest groups (such as the Employers and Manufacturers Association, community networks, Greater East Tāmaki Business Association, marinas, Auckland Community Development Alliance)

(i) The general public (including identified residents and ratepayers associations, marae and local environmental groups)

18. Auckland Council published three documents explaining consultation surrounding the Greater Tāmaki network discharge consent stormwater priorities, issues and criteria:

(a) Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Information Brochure and Request for Feedback.

(b) Frequently Asked Questions – including a list of detailed responses to the frequently asked questions about this project.

(c) The Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent Consultation Summary Report – a detailed technical report regarding the challenges of managing the stormwater draining into the Greater Tāmaki CRE. This report contains details regarding key issues within the Greater Tāmaki CRE, along with an explanation of the potential criteria for prioritisation.

19. These documents were distributed to all stakeholders to assist them in understanding the process and providing feedback. The consultation process was also advertised on Auckland Council’s website at aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursay

Summary of Consultation Outcomes

20. In total, 97 stakeholders were directly contacted. Of these, 46 either attended workshops or provided feedback. A further 14 stakeholders stated that they were not interested in the process. Overall, 62% of stakeholders contacted through this process either responded or provided feedback.

21. Feedback from the consultation process highlighted that contamination of the Tāmaki Estuary and the coastal inlets should be prioritised and most urgently addressed by Auckland Council (Figure 2). This was followed very closely by managing urban streams. The remainder of the issues were closely ranked in the following order:

· managing infrastructure assets

· stormwater effects on the wastewater network

· growth

· the risk of flooding and lastly

· groundwater.

22. However, there is not a large difference between the highest and lowest ranked issue. Consequently, the stormwater unit intends to amalgamate and address all issues.

23. Attachment A further summarises the feedback received following this consultation process. It provides an indication of feedback received by stakeholder group, as well as feedback on criteria that Council should use to prioritise expenditure relating to each of the identified issues. Finally, it also gives a short summary of the consultation results in comparison with the feedback received for the Waitematā Harbour CRE consultation process.

Conclusions

24. Overall, a wide range of stakeholders have been contacted, and diverse feedback provided. This feedback is currently being consolidated and considered in the application document for an Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent.

25. Outcomes from this consultation process will inform the development of the best practicable options for managing stormwater discharges in the Greater Tamaki CRE.

26. Auckland Council’s stormwater unit will formally lodge the Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent with Auckland Council’s regulatory arm in early 2015, pending completion of consultation on all CREs.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

27. As detailed in Attachment A, workshops were held with local board representatives and an item was placed on the local board business meeting agenda requesting feedback. Feedback was received and has been summarised in this report.

28. Six local board areas (Orakei, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Mangere-Otahuhu, Howick, Otara-Papatoetoe and Franklin), and seven ward councillors are located within the Greater Tāmaki CRE. An invitation to a workshop was sent to each of the local boards and ward councillors, along with relevant consultation information.

29. The workshop was held on 13 February 2014, with representatives from each of the 6 local boards attending. Following the workshop, a report on the consultation process and request for feedback was included as an item on each of the local board’s February or March business meeting agendas. Following these meetings, some local boards requested an additional workshop to discuss the project and provide further feedback.

30. Overall, managing stormwater effects from growth was seen as important, and board members wanted to see a ‘partnership-led’ approach to future growth, a collaborative approach between Council and developers to plan for future growth. With respect to asset management, board members stated that it is important to ensure asset renewals and management is undertaken properly in order to minimise effects on the community and the receiving environment.

31. Flooding, coastal erosion and inundation of existing properties were also highlighted as a concern. Members acknowledged the role of the Unitary Plan in mitigating stormwater effects from future development, but stated that it is imperative that the floodplains shown on the maps are accurate. Members felt that effects of stormwater discharges on urban streams and the marine environment were important issues to address. Feedback received on these two issues indicated that the Council should investigate cheaper, alternative ways of rehabilitating streams.

32. Local Boards felt strongly that the role of education in reducing the effects of contaminants should not be underestimated. In addition, they wanted to see Council implement better monitoring and compliance programmes to deal with industries along streams and the coastal marine area. It was acknowledged that groundwater is an important issue for the Panmure Basin.

33. Finally, with respect to stormwater effects on the wastewater network, the members agreed that ‘risk to public health’ is the most important criterion. They did acknowledge that works would likely be constrained by budget.

Maori Impact Statement

34. As per attachment A, feedback was sought from mana whenua and iwi through a series of three consultation workshops. Of the fourteen iwi groups identified, seven either attended the workshops or provided feedback. Overall, the workshops highlighted the holistic approach that iwi have with the three waters, their interest in enhancing and improving water quality, their concern with contamination by stormwater; and their frustration with the legacy of degradation of the Greater Tāmaki freshwater and marine receiving environments.

35. Some iwi were reluctant to prioritise one stream or receiving environment over another as they are viewed in an integrated, holistic perspective, and are all a priority. The mauri of water is a key criterion which should be incorporated into any decision-making processes, and any work which negatively effects the mauri of water would not be supported. In addition, criteria around the use of green infrastructure, holistic contaminant management, management of contaminants at source, and community involvement were strongly supported. Iwi also wanted to see the Auckland Council’s stormwater budget increased to address the identified issues and rehabilitate degraded environments.

36. Those groups consulted showed a keen interest to work jointly with the stormwater unit and Auckland Council on stream restoration and or rehabilitation projects. The portage route between the Otahuhu Creek and Mangere Inlet was identified as high cultural value or importance to iwi, and the Panmure Basin is considered a sacred area.

37. In general, iwi supported Auckland Council’s proposed approach to prioritising management issues, so long as it ensured an integrated framework for enhancing water quality and restoring the mauri of freshwater and coastal waters throughout the region. Iwi were also supportive of working with Auckland Council to find appropriate te reo names for the 10 CREs.

Implementation Issues

38. Three risks with respect to implementation of feedback have been identified. Firstly, it is noted that a wide range of stakeholders are being consulted. As a result, it is likely that there will be differing opinions with respect to stormwater management priorities. Secondly, there is a risk that there could be insufficient funding to implement all identified priorities. Thirdly, since the Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent application will be going through a regulatory process under the Resource Management Act (1991), any outcomes may be open to challenge through this process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Greater Tamaki consolidated receiving environment (CRE) Stormwater Priorities Consultation Outcomes	15

Signatories

Authors

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Infrastructure Committee

03 December 2014

Stormwater Catchpit Maintenance Programme Update

File No.: CP2014/17981

Purpose

1. To update the committee about improvements to the stormwater catchpit cleaning and maintenance programme resultant from changes to programme management and delivery.

Executive summary

2. Prior to the Auckland Council amalgamation, there were some inconsistencies in the implementation of catchpit cleaning and maintenance within the road corridor. This was mainly as a result of a large number of contracts with regional variances and specifications.

3. In July 2012 an agreement was reached between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport that transferred all responsibility for the catchpit cleaning and maintenance functions to Auckland Council’s stormwater unit, in Infrastructure & Environmental Services.

4. The contracts include servicing and maintenance on behalf of Auckland Transport, who as asset owner retain responsibility and accountability for the asset. The contracts are subject to annual funding as per Auckland Transport budget agreements. A staged implementation to consolidate existing contracts was rolled out over a three year period, commencing with the southern region in 2012.

5. As a result of the implementation of these consolidated contracts, positive results were immediately realised. The new cleaning method and change in frequency has resulted in higher contaminated sediment removal than historically measured. This approach has:

· Reduced the amount of contaminated sediment entering receiving environments by an estimated 3,600 tonnes per year.

· Reduced catchpit blockages and associated road flooding occurrences.

6. In addition to the improvements in catchpit maintenance management, new and additional stormwater treatment devices are being installed and trialled to better manage sediment and gross pollutants entering receiving environments.

7. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are currently evaluating how the methodology adopted for the southern area could be implemented across the remainder of the region.

8. Sedimentation from stormwater runoff is managed via an extensive regional network of stormwater ponds, which are de-silted as part of a regular maintenance programme.

9. The total estimated regional sediment removal, from catchpits, stormwater ponds and other treatment devices, is approximately 13,500 tonnes per year. Removal of this sediment ensures both the safe and secure operation of the stormwater network and mitigation of the volume of sediment deposited in receiving environments such as harbours, streams and waterways.

Recommendation

That the Infrastructure Committee:

a) receive the Stormwater Catchpit Maintenance Programme Update report.

Comments

10. The discharge of stormwater, and the sediments and contaminants that it contains, from rural and urban land use activities, has contributed to the degradation of many of the region’s streams, estuaries and harbours.

11. Stormwater sediments have a wide range of operational, aesthetic and environmental impacts. Operationally, stormwater borne sediments can block pipes and catchpit outlets causing localised flooding. Plastics and solids transported by the stormwater network can be dispersed on beaches, with negative social and economic effects.

12. Roadside catchpits (Figure 1) are designed to collect stormwater off from roads and adjacent surfaces and trap sediment and other pollutants.

Figure 1 Photo and illustrative cross-section of catchpits

13. There are approximately 96,000 catchpits in the region. An estimated 14% of these catchpits (13,500) are upstream of secondary treatment facilities such as stormwater ponds. Therefore, in many instances, catchpits are the only opportunity to remove sediments before stormwater reaches the receiving environments, such as streams, harbours and waterways.

14. Since the establishment of Auckland Council, the numerous stormwater maintenance contracts were consolidated into four main contracts. The contracts include the servicing and maintenance of catchpits on behalf of Auckland Transport. The consolidation of these contracts was staged, starting in the South in July 2012, Central and West in July 2013 and the North in July 2014.

15. The most significant change for the new contracts was to the cleaning specifications. Previously catchpits were generally cleaned to 100mm below the invert of the outlet pipe on a reactive basis. This approach effectively addressed road flooding but in most cases left sediments in the sump (the area below the grate), where they are prone to washout in rain events.

16. The new cleaning specification requires a full clean to the bottom of the catchpit sump. This means we are now working collaboratively with our contractors to deliver more robust outcomes and service delivery based on disposal weights as part of this southern trial.

17. The results of the new cleaning specification on sediment removal for the southern catchpit maintenance programme are shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Southern management area monthly average weight in kg/ (dry weight) and number cleaned

18. During the initial eight months of the new southern contract (July 2012–Feb2013), a large weight of sediment was removed from this network due to a backlog of sediment accumulation in the catchpit sumps. This negatively impacted on the total number of catchpits that could be cleaned per month by extending the time required to clean and travel to disposal facilities.

19. Since the backlog of solids contained within sumps has been removed, the average weight removed has dropped to approximately 43kg per clean, while the number of catchpits serviced has increased to approximately 5,000 per month.

20. The new southern maintenance contract requires maximum removal of sediment from catchpits, minimising the quantity of sediment entering receiving environments by allowing for maximum capture within the sump prior to the next clean.

21. Cleaning frequencies of catchpits are scheduled on a risk based approach to optimise sediment capture and removal. On average, catchpits are cleaned approximately twice per year.

22. Changes to the specifications bring an additional contaminated sediment removal of about 3,600 tonnes per annum, refer Table 1 below.

Estimated Contaminated Sediment Removal	North	West	Central	South	Total
Ponds & other treatment devices	310	123	24	470	927
Number of Catchpits	24,000	12,000	25,000	35,000	96,000
Estimated annual volume removed under new Specification (tonnes/year)	1,376	602	3,225	3,096	8,299
Estimated volume of sediment removed under previous specification (tonnes/year)	640	320	2,800	933	4,693
Estimated additional removal (tonnes/year)	736	282	425	2,163	3,606
Ponds & other treatment devices sediment removal (tonnes/year)	2,070	1,250	204	1,700	5,224
Total Contaminated Sediment Removed (tonnes/year)	3,446	1,852	3,429	4,796	13,523

Table 1: Estimated Contaminated Sediment Removals

23. The potential additional amount of sediment collected via the change in catchpit cleaning methodology in the south is significant when compared to how much is removed via other treatment devices that generally have higher operational and maintenance costs.

24. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are currently evaluating how the methodology adopted for the southern area could be implemented across the remainder of the region.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

25. The Stormwater Unit currently provides local boards with quarterly updates on its work programme and works closely with local boards on issues within their local board areas.

Maori impact statement

26. Stormwater and environmental management have integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

27. The improved catchpit maintenance programme improves the mauri of the environment by reducing contaminants loads to receiving environments.

Implementation

28. N/A

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Craig Mcilroy - Manager Stormwater, Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Tony McCartney - Group Manager Road Corridor, Auckland Transport

Authorisers