Catchment Sub-Committee 2021-10-07

Catchment Sub-Committee 2021-10-07 1 of 56

Catchment Sub-Committee Date: Thursday, 7 October 2021Time: 10.30am Venue: Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch


CATCHMENT SUB-COMMITTEETERMS OF REFERENCE

Adopted by Council 29 April 2021

REPORTING TO: Natural Environment Committee

MEMBERSHIP A maximum of 8 councillors together with ngā Tumu Taiao

QUORUM Five members

MEETING FREQUENCY Six weekly

CHAIR Two Co-Chairs

A. PURPOSE

1. To ensure, through appropriate performance monitoring and information receipt, the effective provision of river and drainage engineering services to the Region.

2. To ensure effective liaison with territorial authorities, scheme/catchment liaison committees and scheme ratepayers.

3. Where delegated by Council, recommend to Council for its adoption, finalised draft river and drainage scheme reviews and rating proposals, after taking due account of public submissions.

4. To have regard to the philosophy of ki uta ki tai — from the mountains to the sea — across its streams, lake, wetlands, estuaries, waterways, coastline, biodiversity and water supplies and to the importance and unique characteristics of braided rivers.

5. To work in the spirit of genuine partnership and assist the Council in fulfilling its duties as a partner with Ngāi Tahu and in alignment with the principles contained within the Tuia Agreement.  In particular, the committee will support effective partnerships with Papatipu Rūnanga, recognise the relevance of Te Ao Māori and affirm the importance of an enduring and collaborative relationship between Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga.

B. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES

6. Conduct a review of the existing river rating districts and advisory committee structure, to recommend to an updated structure to the Natural Environment Committee.

7. Monitor the implementation and progress of river control, erosion control and drainage schemes administered by the Council.

8. Monitor the development of asset management plans to ensure service levels are consistent with stakeholder expectations.


9. Monitor the implementation of investigations and works on non-scheme rivers.

10. As delegated by Council, develop policy and plans (including scheme reviews, rating systems, scheme upgrades and new schemes).

11. Encourage establishment of Scheme and/or Catchment Liaison committees, monitor their operation and participate as appropriate.

12. Ensure that the Sub-committee’s activities:

a. Take into account climate-change related risks; and

b. are consistent with Council’s plans and initiatives to give effect to Council’s declaration of a climate emergency on 16 May 2019.

C. DELEGATIONS

13. The Sub-committee has no general decision-making or financial delegations, but from time to time may be given such delegations by Council for specific matters.


Common Catchment Sub-Committee Acronyms

CSC Catchment Sub-Committee

LTP Long-Term Plan

MfE Ministry for the Environment

NBA Natural and Built Environments Act

NEC Natural Environment Committee

NEMA National Emergency Management Agency


Catchment Sub-Committee

Membership

Committee Co-Chairs: Councillor Ian Mackenzie

Tumu Taiao Iaean Cranwell

Committee Members: Councillor Phil Clearwater

Tumu Taiao Yvette Couch-LewisCouncillor Grant EdgeCouncillor Claire McKayCouncillor Elizabeth McKenzieCouncillor Craig PaulingCouncillor Peter ScottCouncillor John Sunckell


Catchment Sub-CommitteeTable of Contents

1. Mihi / Karakia Timatanga - Opening ................................................................10

2. Apologies...........................................................................................................10

3. Conflict of Interest ............................................................................................10

4. Public Forum, Deputations and Petitions.......................................................10

5. Minutes ..............................................................................................................11

6. Matters Arising..................................................................................................15

7. Information Item................................................................................................15

7.1. River Management ............................................................................................15

8. Notices of Motion..............................................................................................56

9. Extraordinary and Urgent Business................................................................56

10. Next Meeting......................................................................................................56

11. Mihi / Karakia Whakamutunga - Closing.........................................................56


1. Mihi / Karakia Timatanga - Opening

2. Apologies

3. Conflict of Interest

4. Public Forum, Deputations and PetitionsDeputation:

1. George Kelcher, Road Metals Co Ltd


5. Minutes

Minutes of the inaugural (1st) meeting of the Catchment Sub-Committee held in the Council Chamber, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch, on Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 2.01pmContents1. Mihi/Karakia Timatanga – Opening2. Apologies3. Conflicts of Interest4. Public Forum, Deputations and Petitions5. Information Item

5.1 River Management6. Extraordinary and Urgent Business7. Questions8. Next Meeting9. Mihi/Karakia Whakamutunga – Closing

PresentCommittee Co-Chairs Tumu Taiao Iaean Cranwell and Councillor Ian Mackenzie; and Councillors Phil Clearwater, Grant Edge, Claire McKay, Elizabeth McKenzie, Craig Pauling, Peter Scott, and John Sunckell

Management and officers present Katherine Harbrow (Director Operations), Tafflyn Bradford-James (Director Communications and Engagement), Jesse Burgess (Senior Strategy Manager), Nick Daniels (General Manager, Field Operations), Leigh Griffiths (Manager, Rivers), and Vivienne Ong (Committee Advisor).

Report Writers and other staff were also present.

1. Mihi/Karakia Timatanga – Opening

Co-Chair Tumu Taiao Iaean Cranwell opened the meeting with a mihi whakatau.

The karakia for the day had been made at the Climate Change Action Committee meeting held at 10.30am.

Members were reminded of the Terms of Reference which explained the purpose of the Catchment Sub-Committee.

2. Apologies


Apologies were received from Tumu Taio Yvette Couch-Lewis, and Chair Jenny Hughey (ex-Officio).

3. Conflicts of interest

No conflicts of interest were declared.

4. Public Forum, Deputations and Petitions

There were no requests for public forum, deputation, or petitions.

5. Information Items5.1 River Management

Refer page 10 of the agenda.

Staff provided an update on river management activities planned, as per year one (2021/22) of the Long-Term Plan work programme.

The following flood protection points were made:- Staff were working with the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

on lodging a claim through the Essential Infrastructure Recovery Fund (which covers 60 per cent of repair cost to infrastructure damaged in a major event).

It was noted the NEMA 60:40 process did not cover ‘betterment’; but there was another option by way of NEMA’s special policy (section 33.6) that allows for applications for betterment subject to preparation of a comprehensive business case.

- A betterment special business case will be lodged for the scheme with rivers and climate change adaption techniques to make rivers resilient for the future. This would be supplementary to the supplementary case study that Environment Canterbury and other regional councils were making to central Government as part of a national bid for permanent central government investment in flood protection.

A considerable number of community meetings across flood effected areas have been held answering questions and informing people on risks, insurance, and recovery.

In response to questioning, it was clarified that ‘targeted rates’ offered flood scheme protection to those situated beside the river. ‘Regional rates’ were levied in return for the whole-of-region benefits provided by flood protection schemes, and Works and Services rates represented benefit to Districts.

Committee members thanked staff for their report and recognised the extra pressure they and those in the field were currently under.

MOTION:

That the Catchment Sub-Committee:


1. receives the River Management Long-Term Plan Work Programme report

2. notes continuing engagement with central government on co-investment in flood protection in Canterbury

3. endorses the preparation of a supplementary case study on the recent flood event including a written letter to Resilience Ministers

4. requests that staff run a workshop for staff and Councillors to review potential changes to the 2021-22 work programme, that considers the impacts of the recent flood events, with any proposed changes to the work programme to be presented to a subsequent meeting of the Catchment Sub-Committee.

An amendment was moved by Cr Ian Mackenzie and seconded Cr John Sunckell. That point three (3) of the above motion be amended by striking out the word “endorses”, and have added in its place the word “notes” ie:

1. notes the preparation of a supplementary case study on the recent flood event including a written letter to Resilience Ministers

The amendment was CARRIEDThis became part of the substantive motion.

RESOLVED


1. receives the River Management Long-Term Plan Work Programme report

5. notes continuing engagement with central government on co-investment in flood protection in Canterbury

6. notes the preparation of a supplementary case study on the recent flood event including a written letter to Resilience Ministers

7. requests that staff run a workshop for staff and Councillors to review potential changes to the 2021-22 work programme, that considers the impacts of the recent flood events, with any proposed changes to the work programme to be presented to a subsequent meeting of the Catchment Sub-Committee.

Cr Ian Mackenzie/Cr John SunckellCARRIED

7. Notices of MotionThere were no notices of motion.

8. Extraordinary and Urgent Business


There was no extraordinary or urgent business.

9. Questions

During questioning it was confirmed that Environment Canterbury currently had sufficient contractors to carry out flood recovery work. This included ensuring sufficient availability of practical hands-on skilled machinery operators.

10. Next meeting

The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, 7 October 2021

11 Mihi/Karakia whakamutunga – closing

The Co-Chairs thanked everyone for their participation.

Karakia: Cr Ian Mackenzie

The meeting closed at 2.34pm

CONFIRMED:Co-Chair Ian MackenzieCouncillor, Environment Canterbury

Date

Co-Chair Iaean CranwellTumu Taiao, Environment Canterbury

Date


6. Matters Arising

7. Information Item

7.1. River Management

Catchment Sub-Committee (CSC) Report

Date of briefing 7 October 2021

Author Leigh Griffiths, Manager Rivers

Endorsed by Katherine Harbrow, Director Operations

Purpose

1. To provide an update to the Subcommittee on River Management activities since the Committee last met on 12 August 2021.

Recommendations


1. RECOMMENDS to the COUNCIL that an additional financial delegation approval is given for unbudgeted May/June 2021 flood recovery expenditure of a further $4.1 million for the year ended 30 June 2022 (noting that Council has already approved $4.1m for immediate flood recovery work)

2. notes the balance of the unbudgeted May/June 2021 flood recovery expenditure of approximately $10 million will be included in the 2022/23 Annual Plan

3. RECOMMENDS to the COUNCIL that potential options for rating changes for funding flood recovery are explored and presented by staff for inclusion in the draft 2022/23 Annual Plan

4. endorses a further workshop with Canterbury Mayors ahead of potential 2022/23 Annual Plan to further engage on possible short- and long-term solutions for the community on flood recovery, river rating and broader out of scheme issues

5. notes that Regional Councils, as a sector, are continuing engagement with Central Government for co-investment in flood protection.

Key points

2. The current cost estimate to damage to Environment Canterbury owned flood protection infrastructure is $19.7 million. There is also substantial damage “out of


scheme” to private land and to infrastructure assets such as roads and bridges owned and managed by various Local Authorities.

3. Community welfare continues to be a concern, with many flood schemes highly vulnerable to weather events until more robust repairs can be made.

4. There is a strong voice from Local Authorities, River Rating District Liaison Committees and the community for alternative funding options, new scheme areas and/or physical works support ‘out of scheme’.

Background

River Rating Schemes

5. Across Canterbury, flood protection and drainage works are carried out in 59 river and drainage rating districts, each doing works on specific parts of rivers or drainage networks.


Types of rating districts and how they are funded

6. River schemes are in the most part funded through targeted rates. Most targeted rating areas have been in place for many years, graded through a classification system so that those that receive the most benefit pay the most. Targeted rates are set on a variety of bases – capital value, land value, land area, rating unit, percentage of service.

7. The funding formula for comprehensive and large schemes is 70 percentage targeted rate, 15 per cent works and services (district) rate and 15 per cent general rate.

8. The ratepayers’ ability to pay (which is generally in proportion to the level of development on the flood plain) will determine the standard of each river control or drainage scheme.


How rating districts are currently fundedType of Scheme Targeted Rate Works and Services Rate General Rate

Comprehensive and Large schemes

70% 15% 15%

Localised river schemes

75% 20% 5%

Drainage scheme

80% 15% 5%

Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere

50% 25% 25%

Waihao-Wainono 60% 30% 10%

Types of work Type of Scheme Flood

protectionErosion protection

Fairway clearance

Drainage Environmental objectives

Comprehensive scheme

x x x x x

Large scheme x x

Localised scheme

x x

Drainage scheme

x x

Establishment of River and Drainage Rating Districts

9. While Environment Canterbury does not carry out demand forecasting for the establishment of new rating districts, it does have a list of possible river/drainage rating districts based on staff knowledge of river behaviour, requests for advice, and community concern.

10. Requests for a change to the level of service, or a new service, can arise from floodplain management plans, Canterbury Water Management Strategy (CWMS) zone committee issues, through the annual liaison committee, or three yearly rating district public meeting processes.

11. River rating district liaison committees meet once or twice a year to comment and advise on the state of the river and the proposed works and budget for the coming year. The committees, which are advisory to Council, focus on whether their community has an adequate and appropriate level of safety, security and resilience from flooding and erosion or an adequate and appropriately resourced drainage network.

12. Staff put forward draft rates based on previous expenditure, knowledge of state of assets, previous direction/indications from River Rating District Liaison Committees,


capital works identified in 30yr Infrastructure Strategy, flood risk studies, scheme reports.

13. Changes to classifications within schemes, setting up new schemes or amalgamating schemes is a complex task which involves high levels of community engagement and can take several years to complete.

Flood Recovery Update

14. The significant rainfall event of 28-31 May 2021 over much of Canterbury, resulted in wide-spread flooding and flood damage across the region. Many rivers across Canterbury burst their banks or experienced out of river flows, damaging community infrastructure, public and private property, and damaging or destroying Environment Canterbury owned flood protection assets.

15. Providing some form of ongoing flood protection through temporary repairs remains Environment Canterbury’s highest priority to prevent further damage to property and to minimise ongoing risk to the community.

16. Significant one-on-one communication has been undertaken with affected landowners and is on-going. This has provided an opportunity to listen to their concerns, communicate priorities, and has been needed to implement temporary works. Welfare remains a concern in some areas particularly where people are not in a flood scheme and/or have extensive damage to private property.

17. A web page is about to go live that shows the priority of 280 repair sites as high, medium and low with details of each. This should help communication, reduce the number of enquires and provide transparency on the forward work programme.

18. A significant focus of staff is immediate and long-term external funding support. The first update report (attached) was issued to National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) in August 2021 to support the 60:40 co-funding which covers ‘like for like’ repairs and replacement only.

19. A Business Case for “betterment” will be pursued over the next year and may include requests for new infrastructure, the adaptation or removal of existing infrastructure and funds for land acquisition.

20. Permanent co-investment with central government continues to be pursued and is now supported by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum. A letter has also now been sent by the Environment Canterbury Chair further stressing the need for permanent funding. A supplementary case study to support the bid is in preparation with a final draft now expected late October.

Flood Recovery Funding Options

21. After this flooding event Environment Canterbury received feedback from communities on key issues and expectations including the need to repair damage as soon as possible but also “build back better” with climate change adaptation and

https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/about/about-nema/

https://www.civildefence.govt.nz/about/about-nema/


environmental values front of mind. Some elected officials and community members have also requested a review of current river scheme settings.

22. On 9 September 2021 a workshop was held with Environment Canterbury Councillors and Canterbury Mayors to discuss options for funding flood recovery, extending or adapting river rating schemes, ‘out of scheme’ support and the impact of options on the Rivers work programme as set out in the current Long-Term Plan (LTP).

23. The current cost estimate for the total flood recovery is just under $20m as detailed in the table below (from NEMA update report – July 2021 figures). The total flood recovery costs as of 19 August 2021 were $4.7m of which approximately $1.8m can be considered within existing (re-allocated) river rating district budgets. As of 19 August, costs are therefore $2.9m overspent.

24. Council approved an overspend allowance of $4.1m in June 2021.

25. Staff estimate that if we continue with the physical works for flood recovery, a total expenditure figure of $10m will be required by the end of 2021/22. This includes the $1.8m reallocation of funds as outlined above, meaning the forecast overspend at the year end of 2021/22 will be $8.2m.

26. The remaining $10m flood recovery expenditure is expected to occur in 2022/23.

27. Staff therefore recommend to the Natural Environment Committee (NEC) that expenditure for flood recovery occurs until 30 June 2022 up to a maximum of $10 million ($8.2 million overspend). The additional expenditure of $10 million in 2022/23 will be included in the draft Annual Plan.

28. Staff have been in regular contact with NEMA officials to ensure access to 60:40 co-funding of eligible costs for damage to our infrastructure is provided. It is estimated that $12.2 million (of $19.7 million) will sit with Environment Canterbury to fund. This is detailed in the table below.


29. The total cost estimate can be broken down into categories as follows:


30. The largest category of physical work ($13,149,600) is made up of the following types of work:

Option 1: Default financing option - Borrow1

31. The traditional way to fund the $12.2 million local Canterbury share required would be a loan. This would equate to approximately 13% total targeted rates increase (when the sum is averaged across the 59 rating districts) to repay in ten years, noting that the impact per impacted rating district varies from a 4 per cent to a 54 per cent rates rise, specifically:

a. Selwyn 5%b. Ashburton Rivers 41%c. Orari – Waihi - Temuka 54%d. Opihi 12%e. Ashley 4%f. Waimakariri – Eyre - Cust 8%g. Ashburton Hinds Drainage 6%h. Upper Hinds 20%i. Lower Hinds 26%

32. Other options are available for shorter or longer payback terms. Several other new options (which would require changes to the 2022/23 Annual Plan) are considered below (in no particular order).

1 All rating calculations use rating values as at 30 June 2021


Option 2: Make changes to percentages to the types of rates collected

33. Percentage weightings of targeted/general/works and services rates could be changed. This could relieve the rates burden on targeted rate payers if the percentage was lowered, but unless it was done in combination with other options (such as a rates rise) it would not generate more revenue to fund repairs.

Option 3: New ‘flood recovery’ rate

34. This could be regional or cover a specific geographic area and it could be collected over a set time period, for example two or five years. Given the scale of the event and the extensive geographic area it covered this could be explored, noting care would be needed not to set a precedent that this would happen for every future flood event. There are many ways this could be implemented; the following have been prepared as examples to demonstrate their relative order of magnitude if they were to be implemented:

a. Option 3A – Fund the $12.2m over 2 years via an increase in the general rate (region wide)

Would require an additional 8 per cent increase in general rates take

54 per cent of increase is funded from Christchurch City, 12 per cent from Selwyn District, and the other districts all contributing less than 10 per cent each.

b. Option 3B – Fund the $12.2m over 2 years via a new UAGC (region wide)

Would require a new UAGC of $25 per property across the region

60 per cent of the UAGC would come from Christchurch City, 10 per cent from Selwyn District, and the other districts all contributing less than 10 per cent each.

c. Option 3C – Fund the $12.2m over 2 years via a new UAGC (impacted districts only)

Would require a new UAGC of $73 per property in the Waimakariri, Selwyn, Ashburton, Timaru and Mackenzie Districts.

30 per cent of the UAGC would come from the Selwyn District, 27 per cent from Waimakariri, 22 per cent from Timaru, 16 per cent from Ashburton and 5 per cent from the Mackenzie District.

d. Option 3D – Fund the $12.2m over 2 years via a 50/50 increase in general rates and a new UAGC (region wide)

Would require an additional 4 per cent increase in general rates take and a UAGC of $13 per property across the region.


e. Option 3E – Fund the $12.2m over 2 years via a 50/50 increase in general rates and a new UAGC (impacted areas only)

Would require an additional 4 per cent increase in general rates take and a UAGC of $37 per property in impacted areas.

Option 4: Expansion of “out of scheme” approach to include physical works

35. Currently Environment Canterbury funds the provision of advice across the region as resources and time allows. The current annual budget for 2021/22 is $320,000 for staff time. Given there is no dedicated resource for this service, some members of the community can wait weeks to get advice. Sometimes the works needed are small in scale and could be managed by Environment Canterbury under our environmental permissions more efficiently and holistically.

36. Expanding the “out of scheme” approach could also present the opportunity to ‘absorb’ all small rating schemes ~$10,000 or less into a regional work programme. This could reduce the number of individual schemes managed from 59 to 41.

37. As an example of how this could be implemented, if a UAGC were chosen as the means of funding across the region:

a. To generate a $1 million annual fund, a region wide UAGC of approximately $4 per property would be required. ($500k fund = $2 per property, $2m fund = $8 per property)

Other options

38. There was strong support from Councillors and Mayors at this workshop for whole of catchment approach to schemes.

39. Amalgamation of schemes has also been raised. With the exception of consulting on absorbing some smaller schemes into the “out of scheme” approach, it is not possible within current resources and timeframes needed for community consultation to amalgamate schemes within the 2021/22 year. A possible work programme of potential amalgamations to reduce the number of rating districts further can be prepared for consideration in the 2022/23 Annual Plan but is not resourced for this financial year.

40. There is a desire in a number of Districts for new schemes, or to expand schemes. This work has not been programmed or resourced this financial year.

41. It is recognised that the desire from the community for scheme reviews, scheme amalgamations, and the creation of new schemes exceeds the current resources of Council (comprising both funding and staff capacity). Even if resources were not limiting, the time required to complete such reviews would likely be longer than communities might wish. It is recommended that Council hosts a further workshop with Mayors, rūnanga, chairs of impacted rating districts and other key stakeholders ahead of potential Annual Plan changes to further discuss possible short- and long-


term solutions for the community on flood recovery, river rating, and broader out of scheme issues.

Resources

42. The Chief Executive has endorsed the additional recruitment of up to seven permanent staff to support the flood recovery and ongoing river work. Adjustments in the annual plan will be needed to account for this.

Climate Resilience Programme - supporting the COVID-19 Recovery

43. In December 2020 Environment Canterbury signed a contract with the Ministry of Business and Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to deliver $24.2M of river resilience projects to support the COVID-19 Recovery.

44. The works under the Climate Resilience Programme of Flood Protection are tracking to plan, with six main projects underway across Canterbury. Despite minor delays due to the lockdown level 4 restrictions in mid-August, the projects are progressing well with two projects (Waimakarirri-McIntoches Bend Flood Protection and Waiau Township Stopbank Repair and Construction) nearing completion in the next month. The next quarterly report is due in early October and can be provided to the Committee after submission.

45. One of the objectives of the programme is to fund employment opportunities across the country as part of the COVID-19 Recovery. The Environment Canterbury programme team has set a target for 1806 FTEs over the 36-month period and has to date achieved 85 per cent of this target. One of the projects is tracking 8 per cent above target as of the end of August (with 60.8 FTEs originally planned over the 10-month period as opposed to the actual 65.4 FTEs engaged as of end of August for the Waimakariri-McIntoches Bend Flood Protection project).

46. Variations submitted to MBIE in late June 2021 to add works to the original scope have been approved. Proposed additional works include upgrade and fish passage improvements across at least ten floodgate and culvert structures across Canterbury and capping of the Washdyke pipes in South Canterbury.

Braided River Revival / Whakahaumanu Ngā Awa ā Pākihi

47. Canterbury’s braided rivers are iconic, ecological corridors running from the mountains to the sea/ki uta ki tai. We are coordinating a regional alliance to revive them and restore connections between people and rivers. We're working with our partners to develop and implement river revival strategies for the Rakahuri and Rangitata rivers, with seven other rivers to be completed by 2028.

48. In addition to the nine individual braided river revival strategies, there is also a commitment (Level of Service 26.1) to initiate the development of a regional river management strategy. This strategy is yet to be scoped but will be broader than the nine individual plans. It is likely the regional strategy will have a ~100-year vision and cover all aspects of river management including flood protection, commitments to


reduce herbicide use, asset management, and aspirations to transition to a “whole of catchment approach” to funding.

49. The Rangitata River is a major part of the Braided River Revival Programme this year, with a multiagency approach to the river’s revival. This work was subject to a separate Council workshop in September. In summary, there are multiple agencies planning workstreams working towards a Revival Strategy for the Rangitata River, with another group of delivery workstreams already progressing restoration and revival initiatives on the ground. These include the Braided River Flagship weeding programmes in the Upper Rangitata and Rakaia Rivers in partnership with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) which are continuing this year.

50. Braided River Revival is also supporting the existing Waiau Toa Weed Control Strategy and a partnership research programme with the DOC, also on the Waiau Toa, investigating trapping design. Also supported is habitat protection work in the Hurunui and a weed strategy in the Upper Waimakariri Basin. We’re also working on pest monitoring and control for the lower Waimakariri and Ashley/Rakahuri rivers and will be investigating the feasibility of a regional approach to Southern Black Backed Gull control. We also have a project promoting the success of braided river bird breeding in the lower Waimakariri.

51. The Braided River Revival Strategy for Ashley River/Rakahuri is in early draft form pending engagement with Ngai Tūāhuriri Rūnanga. The Rūnanga Executive has now asked that we work with Mahaanui Kuataiao Ltd to progress the draft.

52. Braided River Revival is funding the local share for vegetation clearance work in the Ashley River/Rakahuri in support of the COVID-19 recovery. The contract is currently underway for physical clearance in the reach from Ashley Gorge downstream to Cottles Rd. The next step will involve aerial control of willow and brush weeds in the remaining reach of the Ashley/Rakahuri to the Okuku confluence, and upstream in the Okuku River to just north of the Grey River.

Renewal of Herbicide Resource Consent

53. Environment Canterbury holds resource consents covering the use of herbicides within river corridors, which are set to expire in February 2022. A pre-application consultation and engagement plan is being followed with rūnanga partners and stakeholders, to seek input into the Assessment of Environmental Effects before the consents are lodged in November 2021. Engagement with these entities as we develop the application will assist Environment Canterbury in ensuring that as many concerns as possible are addressed in the consent application.

Gravel Management

54. Environment Canterbury plays a key role in river gravel management in Canterbury. Well managed river gravel extraction as an activity has great community value, including flood protection and habitat enhancements as well as providing a resource (such as for roading and construction).


55. In the Greater Christchurch area, land-based gravel extraction exceeds river gravel extraction by a factor of four (Twelfth Knight report, 2014). We do not have data that summarises land-based extraction throughout the rest of the region.

56. Throughout the region, approximately one quarter of the volume of consented gravel is extracted. Contractors extracting gravel report that a ‘buffer’ is required for their surety of supply when quoting for work and submitting tenders.

57. In 2011 a High Court declaration confirmed gravel in rivers as ‘allocable resource’ (one stone to be allocated once). This decision led to a change in the way gravel is managed across Canterbury for the purpose of natural hazard management, and in particular flood management.

58. Environment Canterbury’s management approach to gravel is set out in the Canterbury Regional Gravel Management Strategy. This Strategy was prepared under the Local Government Act in 2012 and adopted by Council after a period of public submissions.

59. The Strategy outlines the role of Environment Canterbury in the sustainable management of gravel extraction from rivers, the outcomes we wish to achieve, and the methods by which gravel extraction should occur. A copy of the Strategy as well as other information on gravel processes and procedures can be found at www.ecan.govt.nz/gravel

60. In the current LTP, Environment Canterbury has committed to initiating a review of the Gravel Management Strategy during 2021/22, with completion in FY2022/23.

61. The Gravel Liaison Committee is an advisory committee set up to facilitate and communicate information relating to river-based gravel extraction. The 12-member committee is divided across four regions and meets annually. Voting for the new Gravel Liaison Committee closed on 31 August 2021 and new representatives will be announced in October. Possible draft changes to the Committee Terms of Reference will be discussed ahead of them coming to Council for adoption.

62. In parts of South Canterbury, river gravel is a scarce resource. The need to ensure that the rate of extraction was sustainable and did not adversely affect river-related infrastructure or create erosion issues led to Environment Canterbury and members of the gravel extraction industry signing the South Canterbury Gravel Agreement. Established in 2007, the agreement sets out specific criteria that operators in South Canterbury have agreed to operate under. It limits consents and authorisations to a maximum volume and duration (currently 30,000 cubic metres and 12 months) enabling better flood management in rivers and ensure that the allocation of material is fair across the industry.

63. The South Canterbury Gravel Extractors Group (informally known as the MOU Group) meets bi-annually, the most recent meeting being 11 August 2021. Some of key discussion points at this meeting were the impact of recent floods; consent processing times, additional requirements and costs; ensuring ‘gravel banking’ does not occur; complexities with additional approvals from DoC and LINZ; the need for

http://www.ecan.govt.nz/gravel


greater engagement with rūnanga; and the process for reviewing the Gravel Management Strategy.

64. As part of the 2021 flood recovery, a comprehensive aerial survey (LiDAR) programme has been initiated on the rivers affected by the flood. Initially focussing on the Ashley, Ashburton (and tributaries) and Orari Rivers, this data will be used to assess bed level change and guide gravel management decisions in the near future. This data is expected to be received to staff by the end of September, with analysis completed within a month of its receipt.

Regional Parks

65.Two new positions were created through the LTP, both of which are currently advertised. The new forestry position will look to increase harvest and ETS revenue through smarter harvests and a better understanding of our forestry assets, both on our land and forestry planted on private land through agreement with landowners. The new Events and Sponsorship position will also look provide alternative revenue through recovering costs from commercial events as well as bringing more people into our parks.

66. Flood recovery work is ongoing post the May/June floods. Significant work has been undertaken at Whites Crossing, works include the removal of silt which has covered that portion of the park along with the reinstatement of fencing and roads which were significantly damaged. A signage revamp programme is underway updating existing signs. New signage will be consistent with our park partners at CCC, SDC and WDC. Cross-branding will also occur, and interpretation boards are being installed including cultural knowledge hubs throughout the parks.

Rivers Special Interest Group 5-year work plan

67. Environment Canterbury participates in a number of pan-regional council Special Interest Groups (SIGs) which provide the opportunity for regional councils to collaborate in areas of common interest and support continuous improvement across all councils. The River Managers' SIG is in year 4 of a 5-year work plan. Environment Canterbury contributes $37,000 annually to the work of the Rivers SIG. Additionally, an annual payment of $21,000 is made for national collaboration on the Climate Resilience/COVID Recovery Programme.

68. The River Managers SIG work plan has four key workstreams. Environment Canterbury, through the Rivers Manager, is co-leading a workstream on collaborative strategy and policy initiatives across the sector. This work includes ongoing engagement with central government for permanent co-investment in flood protection, COVID-19 Recovery projects and national policy and planning changes that effect river management.

69. The other three workstreams are

a. Practices Methodologies and Standards


b. Quality People, Capability and Capacity

c. Communications and Engagement.

70. Examples of national collaboration this year has included the launch of video to entice new engineering graduates into a career in rivers (https://vimeo.com/535640511) and the launch of the ‘Resilient River Communities’ newsletter to promote COVID-19 projects (subscription available upon request).

Cost, compliance and communication

Financial implications

71. As above, there are significant financial implications for expanding on the current work programme as included in the LTP. These will need to be discussed during the up-coming 2022/23 Annual Plan process.

72. $4.1m of Flood recovery unbudgeted expenditure had financial delegation approved at the June 2021 Council meeting for the 2021/22 financial year. This report is requesting an additional $4.1m financial delegation for the 2021/22 financial year.

73. Unbudgeted financial delegation in 2021/22 is being requested from the Council due to timing of the next NEC Committee / Council meetings.

74. The flooding events of May 2021 have put extra pressures on staff and resources. Additional staff and resources will be required for recovery work and to ensure the delivery of the River Management work programme.

Upcoming engagement

75. We will continue to work with Ngāi Tahu and Territorial Authorities in partnership on flood recovery and other initiatives.

76. Meetings are being planned for Rating Districts with heavy flooding impacts to discuss options for funding flood recovery works (including those included within this paper). These meetings will be held before the end of the calendar year, and will inform funding options considered for the 2022-23 Annual Plan.

77. Pre-application consultation is occurring now with partners and key stakeholders on the renewal of Environment Canterbury held herbicide consents for spraying.

78. Lower Waitaki River Rating District Liaison Committee is meeting in November 2021

79. The next meeting of the Regional Gravel Committee will be in November/December 2021.

80. Consideration is being given to a survey on Rating District Liaison Committee structure and function to inform a review of the Committees being initiated this financial year.

https://vimeo.com/535640511


Climate Change Impacts

81. Climate change impacts are factored into river management planning and decisions. With the expectation of more frequent and intense climate change induced flood events, we are reviewing how our river management and flood protection schemes operate with adapted or new infrastructure or solutions needed (such as managed retreat).

82. Climate resilience will be enhanced by the accelerated delivery of projects under the programme of work to support the COVID-19 Recovery.

Next steps

83. Potential options for Annual Plan consideration will be developed by staff. These will be discussed at a further workshop with Mayors before being formally considered by Council.

84. A draft of the supplementary Case Study to support national co-investment in flood protection should be complete by the end October and will be discussed with the Mayoral Forum and this Catchment Subcommittee at scheduled November meetings.

Attachments 1. 2021-08-10 ECAN 2021 Flood Recovery Report Update 1 [7.1.1 - 22 pages]2. 2021-09-27 Resilience Ministers Letter - SI Case Study [7.1.2 - 2 pages]

Peer reviewed by Nick Daniels

Canterbury 2021 Flood

Recovery

Update 1

Ken Tarboton (Aqueus Consulting) Shaun McCracken (Environment Canterbury)

10 August 2021

Attachment 7.1.1


200 Tuam Street PO Box 345 Christchurch 8140 Phone (03) 365 3828 Fax (03) 365 3194 75 Church Street PO Box 550 Timaru 7940 Phone (03) 687 7800 Fax (03) 687 7808 Website: www.ecan.govt.nz Customer Services Phone 0800 324 636

Attachment 7.1.1


Canterbury 2021 Flood Recovery. Update 1. 10 August 2021.

Environment Canterbury Technical Report i

Executive summary

Purpose:

This report documents the significance of the May 2021 Canterbury Flood event and its impact on the Canterbury Region, particularly Environment Canterbury (ECan) infrastructure. It provides an estimate of response costs to the end of July 2021 and an initial estimate of the costs to replace lost ECan infrastructure with like-for-like asset replacement. It is intended that this report be used to support the initial ECan claim to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) for eligible flood response costs, and to provide NEMA with an initial estimate of the overall like-for-like replacement of assets lost as a result of the flood. Background:

The significant rainfall event of 28-31 May 2021 over much of Canterbury, resulted in wide-spread flooding across the region. A region-wide state of emergency was declared on 30 May 2021. The largest 72-hour rainfall totals on record were recorded at 28 of Canterbury’s 84 rain gauges. The event was most significant in the foothills area, with the Mount Somers rain gauge recording 546 mm in 72 hours, more than double the previously recorded maximum for 72 hours. Fifteen of ECan’s 155 water level recorder sites reported the largest floods on record. Flood damage as a result of the exceptional rainfall was significant and widespread across the region. Many rivers across Canterbury burst their banks or experienced out of river flows, damaging community infrastructure, public and private property and damaging or destroying significant ECan flood protection assets. Progress to date: Response and Recovery

Immediate response focused on protecting community infrastructure and dwellings with temporary flood protection works. Follow up work has included further temporary works and assessment and prioritisation of permanent flood recovery works based on risk. Helicopter overflights were an essential part of the damage assessment and provided post-flood aerial imagery for comparison with recent pre-flood aerial images for flood damage assessment. Some 500 locations of flood damage were identified and included in the ECan Flood Damage data base. Financial Status:

Total costs to the end of July 2021 for flood response are $2.9 Million. The initial estimate for total flood recovery is $19.7 Million. This includes the estimated cost to replace lost assets with like-for like assets. Application can be made to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) for a 60% central government contribution to eligible costs above a threshold for like-for-like asset replacement. The threshold for Environment Canterbury is approximately $4.1 Million. Claims to NEMA are assessed on completion of both the temporary and permanent flood damage repairs. This report is being provided to NEMA to give an indication of the likely magnitude of the overall claim for government assistance. The indicative funding mix based on initial cost estimates is a likely claim to central government for a contribution of $7.5 Million towards Flood Recovery with the remaining $12.2 Million to be funded by ECan (refer to table 5-5). Next Steps:

Providing some form of ongoing flood protection through temporary repairs remains ECan’s highest priority. In the next few months it is anticipated that response works will start to taper off and permanent repairs will commence once ground conditions are suitable. Prioritisation of permanent flood damage repairs to replace like-for-like assets is the next priority. Prior to commencing permanent repairs, there will be consideration as to whether or not betterment or improvement on what was previously in place is required. Improvement may be needed to account for climate change and the likelihood of increased frequency and more intense rainfall events. Improvement

Attachment 7.1.1



ii Environment Canterbury Technical Report

could take the form of creating more room for rivers in fairways that have already been widened by the flood. There may also be the opportunity to undertake cost effective repairs to infrastructure in the vicinity of flood damaged assets, while contractors are working in the area. Betterment is not eligible for the 60% NEMA subsidy. Consideration of Climate Change:

The immediate response / temporary works that have been undertaken have a very low level of resilience and are expected to fail in even moderate flood events. The opportunity to consider modifications incorporating the predicted effects of climate change will come in the future as betterment opportunities are explored. These will not be eligible for the 60% NEMA subsidy.

Attachment 7.1.1



Environment Canterbury Technical Report iii

Table of contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

2 Flood Event 28-31 May 2021 ......................................................................... 1

3 Temporary Repairs (Response) .................................................................... 3

4 Damage Assessment and Prioritisation of Permanent Repairs (Recovery) ...................................................................................................... 4

5 Financials ....................................................................................................... 6

6 Risks ............................................................................................................... 8

7 Communications and Community Engagement.......................................... 9

8 Betterment Opportunities ............................................................................ 10

Appendix 1: Estimated Recovery Costs for Physical Works by River ............. 11

Appendix 2: Types of Flood Damage and Temporary Repairs ......................... 12

Attachment 7.1.1



iv Environment Canterbury Technical Report

List of Figures Figure 2-1: Preliminary peak river flow data for the Ashburton area. ................................................2

Figure 2-2: Preliminary peak river flow data for the Timaru and Mackenzie area. .............................3

Figure 4-1: Mapped Environment Canterbury Asset Damage Sites .................................................4

Figure 4-2: Flood Damage Risk Assessment Matrix ........................................................................5

Figure A2-1: Ashburton River South Branch at downstream Pudding Hill Stream confluence. Tree loss and river blow-out on true left bank. Aerial image before flood (left) and after flood (right) ................................................................................................................. 12

Figure A2-2: Aerial view of Ashburton River South Branch downstream of Pudding Hill Stream after flood. Note loss of tree edge protection on true left bank and some temporary bunding ...................................................................................................................... 13

Figure A2-3:Upper Orari River. Stopbank Asset before flood (above) and loss of stopbank asset after flood (below). ...................................................................................................... 14

Figure A2-4:Upper Orari River. Stopbank breakthrough during flood (above) and estimate of river edge protection and stopbank asset loss (below). ....................................................... 15

Figure A2-5: Temporary repair at River Road, Ashburton River on 9 June 2021 (above) and 27 July 2021 (below). ....................................................................................................... 16

List of Tables

Table 4-1: Flood Damage Summary by Type .................................................................................5

Table 5-1: Canterbury 2021 Flood Response Costs at 31 July 2021 ..............................................6

Table 5-2: Canterbury 2021 Flood - Estimated NEMA Eligible Flood Recovery Costs ....................7

Table 5-3: Canterbury 2021 Flood Estimated Non-Eligible Recovery Costs ....................................7

Table 5-4: Canterbury 2021 Flood – Overall Recovery Costs .........................................................7

Table 5-5: Initial Estimate of ECan & NEMA funding model ............................................................8

Table 6-1: Residual and Flood Recovery Project Risks ..................................................................9

Attachment 7.1.1


Canterbury 2021 Flood Recovery. Update 1. 10August 2021

Environment Canterbury Technical Report 1

1 Introduction This report is the first report documenting the May 2021 Canterbury flood to be provided to the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). It provides background to the flood and initial cost estimates for like-for-like flood damage repairs to Ecan’s flood protection assets. It presents the summary of flood response costs and estimated flood recovery costs as at the end of July 2021. Response efforts are still underway and assessment of flood damage still being refined, so these initial estimates will change. The flood of 28-31 May is summarised below, followed by a description of the response activities to date. Flood damage has been assessed across the region and initial estimates of costs presented in the financials section with further detail provided in Appendix 1. Until flood damage repairs are implemented, there remains an increased risk of flooding to the community. An initial assessment of risk is presented. Communication and community engagement is an essential part of undertaking flood recovery. Efforts to date are summarised.

2 Flood Event 28-31 May 2021 On 28 May MetService issued a red alert for the Canterbury region forecasting 200-300 millimetres of rain in the high country which they warned could cause dangerous river conditions and significant flooding. What followed was an extreme rainfall event, both in terms of volume and duration of rainfall. It caused wide-spread out-of-river flooding and resulted in the declaration of a region-wide state of emergency from 30 May to 10 June. This was the largest 24-hour event on record for most of the foothills rain gauges (e.g. Ashburton, Opuha, Mt Somers, Rangitata, Ashley, Selwyn and Waimakariri). The rain gauge at Mt Somers recorded its largest 48-hour rainfall ever, at 526mm. Waimakariri District Flooding in the Waimakariri scheme was moderate with a peak flow in the Waimakariri River of about 2500 cumecs, which is about half of the design capacity of the stopbank system. That is because the upper catchment of the Waimakariri, within the Southern Alps, was largely unaffected by this rainfall. Both the Eyre and the Cust Rivers were flowing at ‘bank-full’ levels through this event and at risk parts of this community were advised to evacuate. A significant amount of bank erosion has been observed and will require repair. The Ashley River reached a peak level that was within 1m of the top of the stopbanks above Rangiora. This peak flow coincided with the flow gauges in the upper catchment not functioning due to extreme water levels and a conservative decision was made to evacuate an at risk part of the community. Fortunately no stopbanks in the Ashley scheme were breached but there has been damage to berm vegetation and groynes within the scheme. Selwyn District The Selwyn River and tributaries rose to high flood levels through this event. Significant out of river flows were experienced. One major stopbank breach occurred near the downstream end of the flood protection scheme. Notably, considerable damage occurred both with the river channel and on adjacent properties in the upper part of the catchment which is not part of ECan’s rating district. This damage is therefore ineligible for NEMA co-funding.

Attachment 7.1.1



2 Environment Canterbury Technical Report

Ashburton District It is within the Ashburton District that the flood damage is concentrated. River flows significantly exceeded design capacities in a number of reaches of the rivers in the catchment as shown in Figure 2-1 below. Estimated peak flows are shown in green and the design capacities of different reaches are shown in red and blue. At State Highway 1, this was the biggest flood on record for the Ashburton River. The damage to ECan assets within the Ashburton catchment is widespread and large scale. Stopbanks have been breached, many kilometres of erosion control vegetation has been completely destroyed.

Figure 2-1: Preliminary peak river flow data for the Ashburton area.

Timaru and Mackenzie Districts These two districts have been combined for this summary as the catchments of these rivers span both districts. For the Orari River, this was the second highest flood on record. Damage to ECan assets includes several stopbank breaches and extensive erosion control vegetation loss. Damage within the Opihi / Opuha catchment is also severe but was significantly reduced due to the fortunate situation of Lake Opuha being at very low levels prior to the rainfall starting. Estimated peak flows are shown in green and the design capacities of different reaches are shown in red and blue on Figure 2-2 below.

Attachment 7.1.1




Figure 2-2: Preliminary peak river flow data for the Timaru and Mackenzie area.

3 Temporary Repairs (Response) The focus since the beginning of June has been on undertaking temporary repairs to maintain the rivers either within or close to their original channels to prevent further damage to property and to minimise ongoing risk to the community. Temporary repairs have included:

Temporary erosion control and overflow reduction though temporary bunding, River fairway, channel and bridge clearing to re-establish flow paths, Urgent erosion repairs, Re-establishing anchored tree protection in areas where tree edge protection has blown out,

and Providing temporary rock protection in places where urgent river edge protection is required.

An example of temporary repairs is provided in Appendix 3. Response work including undertaking temporary repairs is ongoing. The importance of continuing temporary repairs was emphasised by the recent rains of 17 July. Although repairs breached in several locations of previous breakthrough, most of the temporary repairs held up and prevented more wide-spread flooding and further damage to ECan assets. It is noted that this was a relatively low volume rainfall event with the peak flow in the Ashburton River at SH1 only reaching 430 cumecs. Looking ahead, it is expected that further temporary work will be required. This will be in response to braid formations eroding existing temporary structures, and for new temporary works that are required for the implementation of permanent works. Expenditure to the end of July 2021 on flood response is included in the Financials section.

Attachment 7.1.1




4 Damage Assessment and Prioritisation of

Permanent Repairs (Recovery) ECan staff, contractors and staff from other councils were mobilised immediately following the flood to identify all the locations of flood damage throughout the region. 473 damage sites had been identified by the end of June and recorded within ECan’s asset management database which included details of the type and severity of damage, together with location and other relevant information. These are displayed on Figure 4-1 below. Aerial images from helicopter overflights, taken soon after the floods, were also loaded to the same data base, providing before and after flood aerial imagery. Drones have been utilised on a site specific basis once the overall scoping of damage by helicopter was complete. ECan’s flood protection assets (stopbanks, tree edge protection, groynes, rock protection, culverts etc) are all available within the ECan asset management and GIS system. This has facilitated the checking of each identified site against the asset register.

Figure 4-1: Mapped Environment Canterbury Asset Damage Sites

Damage assessment At each site, damage has been assessed as whether it is to an ECan asset and the cost for permanent like for like repair and replacement estimated. Where betterment or partial betterment is required this has been noted. A risk-based approach was used to prioritise flood damage repair using following the matrix below. This risk-based approach has been applied to both temporary (response) and permanent (recovery) works.

Attachment 7.1.1




Figure 4-2: Flood Damage Risk Assessment Matrix

Of all the flood damage sites identified, 281 sites have been assessed as requiring permanent repairs. For replacement of river edge tree protection, tree loss has been grouped into a single repair for several sites along reaches of rivers. Of the sites requiring permanent repair, 23% were deemed high risk 51% medium risk and 26% low risk. Repairs will be prioritised accordingly. Response work is still required or already underway at 68 locations in addition to the sites identified for permanent repairs. Permanent repairs have been completed at 22 sites already. Repairs have been summarised according to the type of work in Table 4-1 below. Replacement of tree edge protection is by far the biggest component of permanent flood damage repair, required at 148 sites or groups of sites over 42km across the region. Stopbank replacement or repair is required at 46 locations requiring 5km of stopbank reinstatement. Cost estimates for permanent repairs are included in the financials section.

Table 4-1: Flood Damage Summary by Type

Type of Work Number of sites

Length of repair

Tree Replacement 148 42 km

Stopbank repair 46 5 km

Erosion repair 52 475 m

Fairway clearing 15

Rock Protection 9 200 m

Groyne repair 7

Culvert Repair 4

Total 281

Attachment 7.1.1




5 Financials

Flood Response

Flood response costs to the end of July 2021 are $2.9 million as summarised in Table 5-1 below. Costs are subdivided into the affected flood rating districts. Of these costs, ECan has assessed that approximately $750,000 are non-NEMA eligible costs (subject to NEMA confirmation).

Flood monitoring costs include external goods and services such as post flood surveys and inspection flights, and external contractor on ground services not specified into a particular rating district. The non-eligible monitoring costs include ECan staff costs, staff travel, vehicle use and administrative charges.

Flood repairs costs for each of the affected rating districts relate to costs for contractors to undertake temporary repair works (to be confirmed by NEMA).

Table 5-1: Canterbury 2021 Flood Response Costs at 31 July 2021

Flood Recovery An estimate of the NEMA eligible Flood Recovery repair costs is included in Table 5-2 below. This has been summarised by rating districts for compatibility with the flood response costs to date. Replacement of tree edge protection is estimated to be by far the most expensive flood damage repair at approximately $6.7 Million. Tree edge protection is included in the Ecan asset register as it forms a major part of the ECan flood protection and erosion control defences. In addition to the estimate of costs per rating district for physical works repairs, ECan will require consultant assistance with Flood Recovery project management, assessment of repair solutions, detailed design, engineer to contract and project oversight for many of the repairs. Rather than attribute this to individual rating districts, this is estimated as 10% of the estimated flood damage repair costs.

Attachment 7.1.1




Table 5-2: Canterbury 2021 Flood - Estimated NEMA Eligible Flood Recovery Costs

Rating District Type of Flood Damage Repair Estimated

Eligible Cost ($)

Response Tree Replace-

ment

Stopbank Repair

Rock Protection

Erosion Repair

Culvert Repair

Groyne Repair

Fairway clearing

Selwyn 157,000 75,000 50,000 0 282,000

Ashburton Rivers 18,000 3,475,000 910,000 170,000 0 4,573,000

Orari-Waihi-Temuka

24,000 1,972,700 3,527,900 454,500 15,000 10,000 6,004,100

Opihi 150,000 206,000 30,000 10,000 13,000 409,000

Ashley River 55,000 25,000 82,000 107,500 0 269,500

Waimakariri-Eyre-Cust

87,000 216,000 113,000 20,000 5,000 441,000

Waimakariri Flood Protection Project

35,000 10,000 225,000 270,000

Ashburton Hinds Drainage

1,000 10,000 11,000

Upper Hinds River 391,000 10,000 1,000 402,000

Lower Hinds River 20,000 358,000 95,000 473,000

Saltwater Creek SA 15,000 15,000

Estimated Eligible Repair Cost ($)

212,000 6,736,700 4,672,900 441,000 710,500 45,000 302,500 29,000 13,149,600

Consultant Assistance (10%) Includes Flood Recovery project management, assessment of repair solutions, design and engineer to contract oversight

1,314,960

Total Estimated NEMA Eligible Flood Recovery Costs 14,464,560

An estimate of non-NEMA eligible costs for flood recovery is provided in Table 5-3 below for completeness of cost estimation for Council. These costs include internal ECan staff costs and possible land acquisition to make room for the river. Betterment costs have not yet been determined, however would also be included as non-NEMA eligible costs.

Table 5-3: Canterbury 2021 Flood Estimated Non-Eligible Recovery Costs

Non-Eligible Recovery Costs Estimated

Cost ($)

Staff - Design Costs (5%) 657,480

Staff - Supervision (5%) 657,480

Subtotal of ECan non-eligible costs 1,314,960

Land Acquisition - indicative estimate 1,000,000

The total cost estimate including response costs to date and future eligible and non-eligible costs are presented in Table 5-4 below.

Table 5-4: Canterbury 2021 Flood – Overall Recovery Costs

2021 Flood Recovery Cost Estimates Cost ($)

Response Costs to Date (includes approx. $750k not eligible) 2,933,302

NEMA Eligible Flood Recovery Costs 14,464,560

ECan non-Eligible Flood Recovery Costs 1,314,960

Land Acquisition - indicative estimate 1,000,000

Overall Flood Recovery Cost Estimate 19,712,822

Attachment 7.1.1




NEMA Eligible Costs Government policy1 is to reimburse 60 percent of the combined eligible costs (response and essential infrastructure costs above 0.002 percent of the net capital value in the case of regional councils. For environment Canterbury the threshold has been determined to be $4,113,817 as follows:

Table 5-3: Environment Canterbury threshold for response and recovery claim to government

Rateable value of Environment Canterbury infrastructure assets (1 June 2021) $205,690,827,124

Threshold Rate 0.002%

Threshold Value (Rateable Value * Threshold Rate) $4,113,817

Based on the initial estimate of flood response and recovery costs the initial estimate of a likely overall claim to NEMA for flood recovery is approximately $7.5 Million (see Table 5-4). The overall cost to Environment Canterbury is estimated to be approximately $11.6 Million. It is stressed that these are initial cost estimates which will be updated and modified through the flood recovery project based on actual costs and NEMA agreement on eligible costs.

Table 5-5: Initial Estimate of ECan & NEMA funding model

Estimated Costs Million $

Response Costs to date $ 2.9

Estimated Eligible Flood Recovery Costs $14.5

Estimated Non Eligible Future Costs $ 2.3

Total Flood Response & Recovery Estimate $19.7

Estimated non-Eligible Recovery Costs -$ 3.1

ECan Threshold for NEMA claim -$ 4.1

Eligible for 60% government subsidy (NEMA) $12.5

Estimated Funding Mix Million $

ECan initial threshold $4.1

ECan – Non Eligible Costs $3.1

ECan – 40% of Eligible Costs $5.0

NEMA – 60% of Eligible Costs $7.5

Total $19.7

Total ECan Estimated Cost $12.2

6 Risks Due to the extent of flood damage and the number of break-outs and breaks through flood protection infrastructure, the risk of further inundation remains high until permanent repairs can be implemented. The following table provides a summary of residual risk and ongoing risks to the flood recovery programme together with mitigation actions to reduce the likelihood of the risks becoming issues.

1 Section 33 of the Guide to the National CDEM Plan, 2015.

Attachment 7.1.1




Table 6-1: Residual and Flood Recovery Project Risks

Risk Description Mitigation Action

Further Floods

Severe weather may cause further flooding before or during flood damage repairs. This could increase the flood damage.

Undertake temporary repairs as soon as possible.

Communicate elevated residual risk to the community, especially in areas where river break-out has occurred.

Spring thaw High spring flows in the rivers when snowmelt occurs could pose further flood risk.

Assess most likely locations of high flows following spring thaws. Undertake priority temporary repairs in these areas.

Funding Security of funding Ongoing communication with ECan Councillors is needed to keep them aware of funding needs from Council Reserves and potential risks.

Work closely with NEMA to maximize NEMA contributions and flood recovery. Closely monitor contractor and materials cost. Follow council procurement processes. Public tender for large works.

Material availability

The availability of material, particularly to undertake tree replacement. Both heavy and light anchored bank protection requires significant lengths of cable and anchors (typically concrete blocks).

Councils around the country have been made aware of ECan’s need for cable. Alternative sources are being investigated.

Contingencies may need to be considered, including the use of higher cost rock protection where material availability limits the reinstatement of anchored tree protection.

Tree growth time

The time for re-establishment of tree edge protection poses a risk until trees can be established.

In critical areas of high risk, alternatives, particularly rock protection, may need to be considered to mitigate risk.

As far as is practicable, live trees are being salvaged from the river fairways and being utilised in repair works. Many of these large trees will resprout and form the future erosion protection.

Staff Resource

Staff resources are limited to undertake oversight and coordination of significant flood damage repairs.

Consider additional contract resource for flood damage assessment, prioritisation and works and on-site works supervision that cannot be delivered in-house.

Programme length

Property owners want works associated with their property undertaken first.

Prioritise flood damage repairs based on risk, and develop and implement a communications plan. Communicate directly with property owners, and with the community as a whole keeping them informed of works priorities.

Ground conditions

River levels from time to time will restrict access and be generally unsuitable to undertake large scale works.

Monitor river levels and plan works for drier months if possible. Communicate this risk to directly affected landowners.

7 Communications and Community Engagement The Environment Canterbury Flood Recovery web page is the primary means of communicating information regarding the flood and flood recovery efforts. It is located at: https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/your-environment/river-and-drain-management/canterbury-flood-recovery/

Attachment 7.1.1




This web site includes information on what happened in the flood itself, flood recovery updates, recent temporary repairs, answers to frequently asked questions and links to information to specifically help the rural community. Significant one-on-one communication has been undertaken with affected landowners. This has provided an opportunity to listen to their concerns, communicate ECan’s priorities, and has been needed in order to implement temporary works. A number of Community engagement meetings have been held including several site visits to view damaged areas. These include:

• Selwyn and Waimakariri field trips • Community meetings: Ashburton, South Canterbury, Okuku

A flood recovery hui was also recently held on 6 August, at which Mayors, Territorial Authority Recovery managers, Rural Leaders, Local Iwi and others gathered to receive an update and discuss regional recovery. This meeting was coordinated by ECan and facilitated by an external facilitator.

8 Betterment Opportunities The future state of Canterbury’s braided rivers may well look different to the pre-flood state, particularly when referencing overall river width, indigenous biodiversity, mahinga kai, recreation and other values. It is no secret that many reaches of these rivers have been squeezed over the last 50 years. In many cases it will not be acceptable to simply build back ‘like for like’. This is particularly so when the effects felt in this event The reality is that there is a balance to be found between (for example):

Providing an acceptable level of flood protection and erosion control, incorporating climate change.

Both the tangible and intangible benefits of a strong river ecosystem, ki uta ki tai. Incorporating te mana a te wai.

Allowing the river more room to be a river. The cost or affordability to ratepayers of capital works for new infrastructure, maintenance, land

acquisition. Existing land use and ownership expectations – allowing these to continue or providing a fair

and reasonable transition pathway for change. The engineering challenges here are actually quite solvable. Our biggest challenge is matching community expectations in the broadest sense with affordability, short and long term. This becomes an exercise of public communication. Currently, there is no long term (say 100yr) vision for what these rivers could or should look like. Prior to these floods, Environment Canterbury had a project budgeted in the Long Term Plan to develop a ‘Braided River Strategy’. This is now more important than ever. There are some obvious locations however that will be investigated thoroughly as part of this flood recovery effort, regardless of a long term vision being in place. For example:

The North Ashburton narrows from around 300m between stopbanks at Thompsons Track to 100m between stopbanks at Shearers Road.

The width of the Orari River narrows from around 650m between stopbanks and a clear fairway of 200m near Geraldine to around 250m and 100m respectively near the coast.

In addition to these betterment opportunities, there may be some inadvertent betterment. This includes the need to replace the function of an asset with a different asset that performs the same function. For example there may be certain locations where it is necessary to replace tree river edge protection with rock protection because of the level of risk, and the time limitations to establish replacement tree edge protection. These opportunities will require discussion with NEAM as to the government co-funding eligibility.

Attachment 7.1.1




Appendix 1: Estimated Recovery Costs for Physical Works by River

Sum of Cost Est Type of Work

LocationCode Response Tree

Replacement

Stopbank

repair

Culvert

Repair

Erosion

repair

Rock

Protection

Groyne

repair

Fairway

clearing

Grand

Total

Ashburton Main Stem 182,000 170,000 352,000

Ashburton North Branch 18,000 1,164,000 590,000 1,772,000

Ashburton River North Branch (S) 66,000 66,000

Ashburton South Branch 1,182,000 320,000 0 1,502,000

Ashburton-Hinds Drainage 10,000 1,000 11,000

Ashley River 55,000 25,000 82,000 107,500 0 269,500

Bowyers Stream 222,600 222,600

Clandeboye Drains 2,000 5,000 7,000

Cust 20,000 60,000 5,000 85,000

Eyre 87,000 53,000 191,000 331,000

Hinds main stem 20,000 10,000 30,000

Lower Hinds River 20,000 358,000 75,000 453,000

Lower Opihi 187,000 30,000 217,000

Opihi Tributaries 0 10,000 10,000 20,000

Opuha Tributaries 150,000 5,000 155,000

Orari River 0 1,153,500 2,444,900 0 3,598,400

Orari Tributaries 0 150,000 10,000 160,000

Pudding Hill Stream 136,000 136,000

Selwyn 157,000 75,000 50,000 0 282,000

South Branch Upper Hinds River 98,200 1,000 99,200

Taylors Stream 522,400 522,400

Temuka River 0 52,000 0 52,000

Tengawai River 14,000 2,000 16,000

Upper Opihi 1,000 1,000

Waihi River 24,000 767,200 1,083,000 272,500 10,000 2,156,700

Waihi Tributaries 30,000 30,000

Waimakariri Flood Protection Project 35,000 5,000 10,000 50,000

Waimakariri River 5,000 0 215,000 220,000

WEC other 25,000 25,000

Saltwater Creek SA 15,000 15,000

North Branch Upper Hinds River 292,800 292,800

Grand Total 212,000 6,736,700 4,672,900 45,000 710,500 441,000 302,500 29,000 13,149,600

Attachment 7.1.1




Appendix 2: Types of Flood Damage and Temporary Repairs River edge protection – tree loss.

Figure A2-1: Ashburton River South Branch at downstream Pudding Hill Stream confluence. Tree loss and river blow-out on true left bank. Aerial image before flood (left) and after flood (right)

Attachment 7.1.1




Figure A2-2: Aerial view of Ashburton River South Branch downstream of Pudding Hill Stream after flood. Note loss of tree edge protection on true left bank and some temporary bunding

Attachment 7.1.1




Stopbank Loss (Orari River example)

Figure A2-3:Upper Orari River. Stopbank Asset before flood (above) and loss of stopbank asset after flood (below).

Attachment 7.1.1




Stopbank Loss (Orari River example)

Figure A2-4:Upper Orari River. Stopbank breakthrough during flood (above) and estimate of river edge protection and stopbank asset loss (below).

Attachment 7.1.1




Temporary Repair Bunding (Ashburton River at River Road example).

Figure A2-5: Temporary repair at River Road, Ashburton River on 9 June 2021 (above) and 27 July 2021 (below).

Attachment 7.1.1


Our ref: Page 1

27 September 2021

Hon Nanaia Mahuta Minister of Local Government

Email: [email protected]

Hon David Parker Minister for the Environment


Hon Grant Robertson Minister of Finance


Hon James Shaw Minister for Climate Change Email: [email protected]

Hon Kris Faafoi Acting Minister of Emergency Management


Hon Stuart Nash Minister for Economic and Regional Development


Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan Minister for Community and Voluntary Sector Email: [email protected]

Dear Ministers,

Co-investment in river management and flood protection schemes

Flooding is New Zealand’s most common natural hazard estimated to cost the country $160 million per year. The 31 May – 2 June Canterbury regionwide flood event (and the flooding that followed in Buller and Marlborough) highlights the bias of our current system toward recovery and response action, rather than coordinated investment in early risk reduction and preparedness.

A new case study based on recent flood events in the South Island is now being prepared for your review as an update to the 2018 business case Central Government Co-investment in River Management for Flood Protection to further support the recommendation for permanent central government investment. We expect this to be completed by November 2021.

The Canterbury flood event was extreme, with Ashburton particularly hard hit. Concerns about structural stability temporarily closed the Ashburton River bridge on State Highway One, cutting off lifeline services reminiscent of the Rangitata floods of December 2019. The limits of Canterbury’s flood protection schemes were tested and flooding in rural areas left many landowners to deal with significant erosion and gravel deposition.

This event alone will take us at least two years to reinstate schemes to pre-flood levels of protection at an estimated cost of $15 to $20 million just for infrastructure replacement on a like-for-like basis.

Current funding inadequate for the challenges of climate change

Furthermore, the recent flooding is a stark reminder of our changing climate, placing flood resilience front and centre for a concerned public. The community experienced significant flow-on effects and many areas remain vulnerable to future rainfall events with landowners on high alert. We will be working alongside key

Attachment 7.1.2


mailto:[email protected]












stakeholders with affected communities whose lives and livelihoods have been significantly affected for some time, even as we continue to manage the impacts of the 2019 Rangitata flood.

Together with other regional councils in the Rivers Special Interest Group, we acknowledge that meeting future flood resilience objectives is beyond the reasonable capacity of ratepayers alone, particularly when flood risks are magnified by climate change. Communities are struggling to pay for the maintenance of current infrastructure, let alone additional works required to meet the challenges of more frequent and higher magnitude weather events.

Ratepayers currently bear a disproportionate share of scheme costs when compared to who benefits. We have also noted considerable post-flood community concern regarding how current schemes are funded and how works out of scheme are not.

Increasing complexity of river management

River management has evolved significantly in recent years. Multiple values prioritised at the national level must also now be supported as part of river management and flood resilience.

We work alongside iwi as tangata whenua and Treaty partners, acknowledging the special status of our relationship to ensure that Māori values and interests are protected and enhanced.

The emphasis by government, Māori, and the public on the importance of ecological, environmental, and whole of catchment considerations has resulted in an increasingly complex environment requiring community engagement, co-design of solutions with iwi, consideration of ecological and environmental issues and development of strategies for adaptive responses that must in turn be coordinated with other agency partners.

Successful co-investment for future resilience

Crown co-investment with regional communities and directly benefiting property owners in river management and flood protection is required on an urgent basis.

We are confident that our $24.2 million climate resilience programme of flood protection projects, part-funded by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s Kānoa – Regional Economic Development & Investment Unit (REDIU), will prove the case for ongoing central government co-investment. These ambitious projects are currently supporting transformative initiatives that improve the resilience of our communities and support multiple values.

To consider the details of crown co-investment in flood protection, we reference the recent Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Regional Sector meeting with Ministers Mahuta and Shaw on climate resilience. Council fully supports the LGNZ request to establish, as a priority, a joint working group of officers who would report to Resilience Ministers in time for appropriate provisions to be included in the 2022 budget.

Investment at this critical time will pay dividends in the future to secure the intergenerational health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders and ensure that we have a resilient economic network ready to adapt to the changes we know are coming. We look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Hughey Council Chairperson

Attachment 7.1.2


https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbie.govt.nz%2Fbusiness-and-employment%2Feconomic-development%2Fregional-economic-development%2Fkanoa-regional-economic-development-investment-unit%2F&data=04%7C01%7CStephanie.Symns%40ecan.govt.nz%7Ced4a201641ed4c8c10f208d961ecf7f4%7C984befeac12e454e91117b8d8da5e7e1%7C0%7C0%7C637648492718037854%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oKAwwPG3bdrotvjMqg28Cvom9stNCvra6hZ248bG0KY%3D&reserved=0

https://apc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mbie.govt.nz%2Fbusiness-and-employment%2Feconomic-development%2Fregional-economic-development%2Fkanoa-regional-economic-development-investment-unit%2F&data=04%7C01%7CStephanie.Symns%40ecan.govt.nz%7Ced4a201641ed4c8c10f208d961ecf7f4%7C984befeac12e454e91117b8d8da5e7e1%7C0%7C0%7C637648492718037854%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=oKAwwPG3bdrotvjMqg28Cvom9stNCvra6hZ248bG0KY%3D&reserved=0


8. Notices of Motion

9. Extraordinary and Urgent Business

10. Next Meeting

11. Mihi / Karakia Whakamutunga - Closing

Catchment Sub-Committee 2021-10-07

Documents

Transcript of Catchment Sub-Committee 2021-10-07