Agenda of Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 20 October 2015

09:30am

Room1, Level 26
135 Albert Street, Auckland

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Wayne Walker
Deputy Chairperson	Linda Cooper, JP
Members	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
	Cr Ross Clow
	Cr Chris Darby
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
	Cr Mike Lee
	Member Liane Ngamane
	Cr John Watson
	Member Karen Wilson
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
Ex-officio (without voting rights)	All other councillors

(Quorum 5 members)

Quorum must include at least 2

named voting members

Elaine Stephenson

Democracy Advisor

13 October 2015

Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117

Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities and key projects

The Committee is responsible for regional environment, climate change and natural heritage by:

· Developing (and monitoring) strategy, policy and action plans, including any agreed community consultation, to recommend to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, as set out in the Schedule of Key Projects for Reporting Committees, attached to these Terms of Reference*

· Acting as a community interface for consultation on policies and as a forum for raising community concerns, while ensuring community engagement is complementary to that undertaken by local boards

· Making decisions within delegated powers, including

§ Allocation of the Environmental Initiatives Fund

§ Allocation of the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (REG/2013/4)

Powers

All powers necessary to perform the Committee’s responsibilities

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)

(b) where the Committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(d) the approval of expenditure that is not contained within approved budgets

(e) the approval of expenditure of more than $2 million

(f) the approval of final policy

(g) deciding significant matters for which there is high public interest and which are controversial

(h) the commissioning of reports on new policy where that policy programme of work has not been approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

(i) the power to establish sub-committees

*Schedule of key projects for the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

Regional pest management strategy

Environmental strategic action plan

NPS –Freshwater management programme

Natural hazards risk management action plan

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.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

· Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

· Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

Staff

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

· Other 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.

Council Controlled Organisations

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

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

20 October 2015

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 3

2 Declaration of Interest 3

3 Confirmation of Minutes 3

4 Petitions 3

5 Public Input 3

6 Local Board Input 3

7 Extraordinary Business 3

8 Notices of Motion 3

9 Response to Sea Cleaners and Issue of Waste in Marine Environment 3

10 Future resourcing of the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group, through the Long Term Plan process 2015-2025 3

11 Safeswim seasonal report 3

12 Progress report on action items from minutes of previous meetings 3

13 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

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 Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 21 July 2015, 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 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day 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 6.2 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 one (1) day’s 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 6.1 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.

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

20 October 2015

Response to Sea Cleaners and Issue of Waste in Marine Environment

File No.: CP2015/10728

Purpose

1. To provide a report back to the Environment, Climate Change, and Natural Heritage Committee on current initiatives to address litter in the marine environment, and funding opportunities for organisations interested in undertaking litter clean-up operations in the Manukau Harbour.

Executive Summary

2. In receiving a proposal from Sea Cleaners to undertake litter clean-ups in the Manukau Harbour at its May 2014 meeting, the Environment Climate and Natural Heritage Committee requested a report back on the following issues:

· ways to reduce waste reaching the marine environment;

· support for Sea Cleaners in engaging with iwi and hapu;

· other similar programmes supporting waste minimisation in the marine environment; and

· funding available to support clean-up work in the Manukau Harbour.

3. This report outlines a number of existing mechanisms and programmes available to address the issue of marine litter. The report also provides an overview of funding sources available to support clean-up work in the Manukau Harbour.

Recommendations

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) note the existing waste minimisation programmes that can contribute to the reduction of the amount of waste ending up in the marine environment.

b) note the funding sources available to organisations interested in undertaking litter clean-up operations in the Manukau Harbour area.

Comments

Background

4. Marine debris has an effect on amenity values by fouling the coastline, including beaches. Plastic marine debris has specific effects on biodiversity through:

· entangling or consumption by marine and seabird life;

· chemical effects on water quality, being the source and sink for xenoestrogens (chemical compounds that disrupt the normal function of hormones) and persistent organic pollutants; and

· commerce and recreation through fouling vessel intake ports, keels and propellers.

5. Plastic becomes brittle and fragments to very small pieces when exposed to sunlight and seawater and becomes non-recyclable.

6. Sea Cleaners presented a proposal to the May 2014 Environment Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee meeting requesting annual funding of $358,000 to support ongoing litter clean-ups along the Manukau Harbour coastline. In receiving that report, the committee requested officers provide a report back looking at options to reduce marine litter, identify any funding sources, and other programmes supporting reduction in marine litter.

Waste Minimisation Initiatives

7. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) contains several approaches that can contribute to the reduction of marine litter by focusing on reducing waste at source, particularly through advocating for product stewardship. In addition, the WMMP supports advocating for the introduction of container deposit legislation, whereby a small refund would be received on return of the packaging (e.g. plastic bottles), incentivising appropriate disposal rather than littering.

8. At present, legislation requires local government to reduce waste. The WMMP recommends advocating to central government to amend the waste legislation to apply the same responsibility for waste reduction to industry as currently legislated for local government.

9. At its March 2015 meeting, the committee endorsed the formation of a Packaging Workgroup to look at ways of reducing packaging waste. This group held its first meeting in May 2015. The committee also endorsed initiatives to encourage Auckland Council to minimise its use of plastic bags.

10. Auckland Council also supported a remit from Palmerston North District Council to the Local Government New Zealand 2015 Annual General Meeting “That the government impose a compulsory levy on plastic shopping bags at point of sale”.

11. The Litter Act 1979 (Litter Act) allocates the responsibility for the promotion of litter control throughout New Zealand to Keep New Zealand Beautiful Incorporated (KNZBI). However, council officers are working closely with KNZBI, most notably with the development of the Litter Strategy and associated promotional campaigns.

12. The Litter Act also provides the option for local authorities to appoint warranted Litter Control Officers to prevent the deposit or attempted deposit of litter. Unlike the Waste Minimisation Act, the Litter Act has an approved and active infringement schedule. This allows warranted Litter Control Officers to issue infringements (up to $400) for minor litter offences. There is also an option for prosecution under this Act for more serious breaches – these are criminal convictions and involve a monetary fine as well as a potential jail term.

13. Cigarette butts are a particular type of litter which poses a hazard to the marine environment. Marine litter messaging, which aligns with the Auckland Council Smoke-Free Policy 2013, which aims to reduce the smoking population to less than 5 per cent by 2025, is a double win. On top of public health benefits, environmental gains include the protection of Auckland’s environment by decreasing risk of fire from cigarette butt litter and by reducing the amount of cigarette packet and butt litter that enters the environment, including the sea.

14. Under the Resource Management Act, Auckland Council is required to obtain a network discharge consent for the diversion and discharge of stormwater from its infrastructure. Council is currently applying for this region-wide consent, which includes the following commitments with respect to litter management:

· development of a contaminant management strategy. This strategy will include the identification and feasibility assessment of potential infrastructure measures for litter control (e.g. implementation of tetratraps to capture litter and other pollutants prior to entry into the stormwater system), as well as engagement with Auckland Transport, council’s waste management teams, and organisations such as Sea Cleaners and Sustainable Coastlines on litter management

· targets for the removal of 5,000 tons of contaminants (including litter) annually from catch pits and 10,000 tons from wetlands and ponds.

Iwi and Hapu of the Manukau Harbour

15. Iwi have submitted to council on the importance of the Manukau Harbour through various consultation processes. The harbour treaty settlement process (currently underway) will provide opportunities for iwi to co-manage marine issues.

16. Sea Cleaners is encouraged to speak with mana whenua early regarding its intentions. Council staff can assist Sea Cleaners to identify iwi contacts.

Volunteer and Community Engagement Programmes

17. There are a range of programmes in place that support improvements to waterways and the marine environment. These include council-funded initiatives such as Wai Care and Enviroschools through to community-led initiatives such as Keep Waitakere Beautiful (Stream Watch), Ecomatters Environment Trust, Experiencing Marine Reserves, Whau River Catchment Trust and Sustainable Coastlines.

Funding Sources

18. There is no specific funding in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to support Sea Cleaners. The new Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Fund may provide a source of support for Sea Cleaners. However, any application would be considered alongside other ‘regionally significant’ initiatives and the total funding available regionally is less than $500,000.

19. Local boards also have their own new grants programmes aligned to the Community Grants Policy which vary in scale and priorities. Details on individual local board funding priorities and funding rounds are available on the Auckland Council website.

20. There are a number of non-council funding sources, such as the Foundation North (formerly ASB Community Trust), that organisations and community groups can apply to for support with environmental projects. An online directory of funding sources is available through the Funding Information Service online search tool (http://www.fis.org.nz/products/fund-view/) which lists more than 1,000 resource schemes for communities, volunteer organisations and clubs.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

21. No specific consultation with local boards was undertaken for the purposes of this report. The nine local boards bordering the Manukau Harbour have formed the Manukau Harbour Forum (the Forum) in recognition that addressing the environmental needs of the Manukau requires a coordinated approach.

22. The Forum’s work programme does not currently contain a project supporting litter reduction. It is suggested that Sea Cleaners approach the Forum directly with regards to funding.

Māori impact statement

23. No specific consultation with Māori was undertaken for the purposes of this report. Iwi have stressed as part of other regional and local consultation processes the importance of the Manukau Harbour, in particular as a source of kaimoana. This feedback has been incorporated by some local boards in their local board plans, and has been noted by the Forum.

Implementation

24. There are no implementation issues arising from this report. Projects and programmes noted in the report are funded through existing council regional and local board budget lines.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Parul Sood - Manager Waste Planning
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

20 October 2015

Future resourcing of the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group, through the Long Term Plan process 2015-2025

File No.: CP2015/20396

Purpose

1. To provide the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee (the ECCNH Committee) with information on the budget available in the current financial year (FY 2015/16) to go towards resourcing the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group (IKHMG).

Executive Summary

2. The report is in response to the Committee’s resolution ENV/2014/48 c) from its 26 November 2014 meeting, which requests a report on future resourcing of the IKHMG, through the Long-term Plan (LTP) process 2015-2025.

3. The purpose of the IKHMG is to promote integrated and co-ordinated inter-agency management and kaitiakitanga of the Kaipara Harbour and its catchment that contribute to the common vision of “A healthy and productive Kaipara Harbour”.

4. While no dedicated budget provision has been made in the LTP for IKHMG, given Auckland Council is a member organisation and that the aims of the IKHMG align with those of the council, resourcing is planned within both operational and strategic programmes aligned to the IKHMG business plan.

5. The current 2015/16 FY now has budgets and staff time dedicated to the work of the IKHMG. The contributions come from both the Chief Operating Office (COO) and Chief Planning Office (CPO) as set out below.

Funding Contribution 15/16	Purpose
$35,000 (COO)	Seed funding towards establishment of the Programme Manager role
$15,000 (COO & CPO)	Contribution towards annual work programme
800 hours staff time (COO & CPO)	Annual work delivery including Flagship farm programme (planting days, monitoring sites), strategic advice and support.

6. Projections of budgets beyond the current financial year are not possible due to uncertainties of pending co-governance arrangements following Treaty settlement of the Kaipara Harbour, and possible funding for that co-governance coming from other sources.

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) note the current financial year budgets for the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group from the Chief Operating Office and the Chief Planning Office.

b) note the Treaty settlement process which is underway affects the council’s ability to project a budget for the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group beyond the current financial year.

Comments

7. The IKHMG was established in 2005, with the Auckland Regional Council and Rodney District Council as member organisations. Auckland Council continues to be a member. IKHMG representatives presented their Business Plan 2014-17 to the ECCNH committee meeting in November 2014.

8. In 2012, the Kaipara Harbour Joint Political Committee (KHJPC) was established to ensure a consistent approach to managing the Kaipara Harbour for better environmental outcomes. The KHJPC is a Rodney Local Board initiative which brings together four councils (Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, Whangarei District Council and Kaipara District Council) and iwi including Te Uri O Hau and Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara to share the governance and discuss issues facing the harbour.

LTP Funding for IKHMG

9. While no dedicated budget provision has been made in the LTP for IKHMG, given Auckland Council is a member organisation and that the aims of the IKHMG align with those of the council, resourcing is planned within both operational and strategic programmes aligned to the IKHMG business plan.

10. The programme manager role being established is recognised as a key part of delivering on the business plan. COO and CPO resourcing is summarised in the table shown in the executive summary of this report.

11. Mana Whenua and the Crown are currently negotiating Treaty settlement of the Kaipara Harbour. It is possible that this settlement may be completed into law by the end of calendar year 2016. The IKHMG is signalled to become the co-management body for the harbour. The council’s support helps maintain and improve the capacity of this group towards the post-settlement environment.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. The Rodney Local Board convenes the Kaipara Harbour Joint Political Committee (KHJPC) which oversees the IKHMG. Therefore this local board has not specifically been consulted on this report as it receives regular updates through KHJPC and IKHMG processes.

Māori impact statement

13. Similarly to the local board consultation section, all mana whenua iwi of the Kaipara Harbour are already represented on both the KHJPC and IKHMG and are regularly updated on funding issues.

Implementation

14. Operational funding will be implemented through ongoing programming.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Will Trusewich - Specialist Coastal

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee

20 October 2015

Safeswim seasonal report

File No.: CP2015/09976

Purpose

1. To present the 2014/15 Safeswim programme seasonal report.

Executive Summary

2. Each summer, Auckland Council monitors the microbiological safety of recreational water across the region. This report summaries the 2014/15 Safeswim programme and advises minor changes to be implemented for the forthcoming season.

3. The purpose of the Safeswim programme is to determine bacteriological water quality and report public health risk on bathing water quality.

4. Sixty-nine sites across the region were monitored for 22 weeks from November 2014 through to March 2015. During this season, 1766 samples, including 252 retesting samples were collected and analysed.

5. Ninety per cent routine water samples met the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health guidelines, demonstrating good water quality most all the time.

6. In rare and isolated circumstances, 61 amber and 85 red alerts were recorded.

7. This resulted in formal health warnings being issued. Seventy-seven per cent of the warnings issued were due to poor water quality found in the four West Coast Lagoons and the Karekare Carpark site.

8. The numbers of sites and days receiving health warnings were significantly higher than the 2013-2014 season (18 sites, 96 days) and the 2012-2013 season (16 sites, 124 days).

Recommendation/s

That the Environment, Climate Change and Natural Heritage Committee:

a) receive the Safeswim programme seasonal report for 2014/15.

b) request that a copy of the Safeswim seasonal report is sent to the Local Boards for their information.

Comments

Background

9. Recreational beach monitoring is undertaken in accordance with the national guidelines Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Recreational Areas published by the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health (MfE/MoH). The guidelines set up three modes for recreational water quality monitoring for public health protection:

· Green - safe mode, where bacterial levels are acceptable for swimming.

· Amber - alert mode, where alert level has been exceeded, and sampling is increased to a daily frequency to confirm if a problem exists.

· Red - action mode, where action level has been exceeded, and water quality is likely to be unsafe for swimming. Health warning signs are required in conjunction with a media advisory note until bacterial levels have returned to safe mode. Installation of warning signs for marine water requires two consecutive exceedances over the action level.

Results for 2014/2015 season

10. Sixty-nine sites were monitored weekly from November 2014 through to March 2015. These include 63 beaches, 4 lagoons, one stream and one lake.

11. During the 22 weeks of monitoring, 1766 samples were tested comprising 1514 routine samples, with 252 resamples collected following routine sample exceedances.

12. Figure 1 shows that 90% of routine water samples met the MfE/MoH guidelines. Four percent exceeded the 'Alert' guideline levels and six percent exceeded the ‘Action’ levels (61 and 85 samples respectively). The overall compliance rate is similar to previous two seasons. Details of the number of exceedances are provided in Figure 2 and overall results are summarised in Figure 1.

Percentage Green, Amber and Red modes for the 2014/15 Safeswim season

Figure 1: Proportion of routine results that were within the three modes of the MfE/MoH guideline over the 2014-2015 Safeswim season

13. Seventy seven percent of sites demonstrated safe bathing water quality overall.

Figure 2: Number of rountine samples exceeding the alert and action guideline levels

14. Of those sites that did exceed the guidance, beaches and lagoons from the West Coast accounted for 70% (102 out of 146 exceedances) (Figure 2).

15. Health warnings were required at 22 sites on 54 occasions. These were in effect for a total of 183 days.

16. Based on health warning days and the number of retests required, the top eight sites with identified poor water quality were: Piha South Lagoon, Bethells Lagoon, Piha North Lagoon, Karekare Lagoon, Karekare Carpark, Fosters Bay, Laingholm Beach, and Wood Bay.

17. The Safeswim webpages received 36,385 visits over this monitoring season.

Next steps

18. The ongoing high exceedance rates, and prolonged re-tests required for some of the sites in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area is an ongoing concern. Further, detailed investigations reveal the lagoons are significantly impacted by obsolete and failing private wastewater systems draining into the lagoons. Council’s response to this issue will be presented in a separate paper to this committee.

19. A review of the regional Safeswim programme is underway this year. This includes an evaluation of monitoring sites, frequency and timing of monitoring, methodologies and evaluation of options for health risk management and communication. Key external stakeholders to be consulted include the Auckland Regional Public Health Services Watercare Services Ltd, Ministry for the Environment and manawhenua.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. Local Boards will be consulted as part of the Safeswim review process.

Māori impact statement

21. This report does not require any decision making but recognises that the issue of water quality has integral links with the Mauri of waterways and harbours and concepts of Kaitiakitanga. The cultural significance of recreational sites will be taken into consideration in the review process of the monitoring sites in the region. Manawhenua will be consulted as part of the Safeswim review process.

Implementation

22. This report is for information only and does not have implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Sharon Tang - Environmental Health Specialist

Authorisers

Mervyn Chetty - Manager Environmental Health, Licensing and Compliance Services

Grant Barnes - General Manager Licensing and Compliance Services

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research