Agenda of Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee Meeting

File Ref: 17/1119

REPORT TO: Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee

MEETING DATE: Friday 24 November 2017

FROM: Waste and Data Services Manager

Martin Jarvis

Management Accountant

Jeff Tieman

SUBJECT: 3 Month Activity Report

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee on landfill activities for the period ending September 2017.

1.2 This report concludes by recommending it be received.

2.0 financial position

2.1 The financial position of the main accounts at 30 September 2017 is as follows:

	$ 3 month actuals	$ 3 month budget	$ 3 month variation
Revenue*	1,906,976	1,349,550	557,426
Expenditure*	950,665	943,201	7,464
Net surplus from operations	956,311	406,349	549,962

*Excludes the waste levy and ETS.

2.2 The net surplus from operations as at 30 September 2017 is $549,962 above budget.

2.3 Tonnages are currently tracking down on last year’s actual total (19.9T versus 20.3T).

3.0 revenue

3.1 Total revenue from waste is above budget. This is mainly due to increased volumes of Special and Commercial Waste. A smaller increase in waste was recorded for the HDC Refuse Transfer Station.

	$ 3 month actuals	$ 3 month budget	$ 3 month variation	$ Annual budget
Commercial	687,530	650,000	37,530	2,600,000
Special	278,509	213,500	65,009	854,000
HDC	197,508	184,250	13,258	737,000
NCC	270,882	268,000	2,882	1,072,000
Total	1,434,429	1,315,750	118,679	5,263,000

4.0 expenditure

4.1 Expenditure is $87,120 over budget (includes waste levy and ETS) due to higher tonnes versus budget and leachate disposal (which is covered by the reserve).

5.0 tonnages

5.1 Overall tonnages year to date are above budget by 1,189 tonnes or 6%.

Activity	3 month actual	3 month budget	3 month variance	Annual budget
Commercial	10,902	10,251	651	41,000 t
Special	2,195	1,749	446	7,000 t
HDC	2,885	2,751	134	11,000 t
NCC	3,958	3,999	(41)	16,000 t
Total	19,939	18,750	1,189	75,000 t

5.2 The budgeted volume of waste for the 2017/18 year is 75,000 tonnes. In 2016/17 the actual volume of waste received was 84,843 tonnes.

6.0 development update

6.1 To date $174,614 has been spent on construction work on Stage 3C of Area D. This work is ongoing and construction of the gas extraction system is expected to be continue into the 2018/19 financial year. The development budget for the full year is $1,146,728. Any funds not spent in the current year will be carried forward to fund future development stages in Area D. An option to extend and maximise the filling area of Area D is still being developed and it is expected that more information on this will be available at the next committee meeting.

7.0 MAINTENANCE WORK

7.1 There are no significant maintenance issues to report. Other than routine maintenance work some extra work has been carried out on the flare, gas extraction system and litter fences.

8.0 leachate

8.1 Due to wet weather conditions over the winter period some leachate was carted offsite for disposal. The cartage stopped as soon as the irrigation system was able to be reactivated. A total of $34,607 was spent on carting and disposing of leachate. This cost will be covered by the leachate reserve and therefore have no impact on the final landfill operating account.

9.0 LANDFILL GAS

9.1 The construction of additional horizontal gas wells and connecting pipe systems in Area D is continuing as more waste is placed in the area. This will result in an increase in the volume of gas captured at the site and the quality of the gas. Tonkin & Taylor have carried out a review of the gas management system and their recommendations are now being implemented.

10.0 landfill forest

10.1 The landfill forest has now been harvested by Pan Pac Forest Products Limited and the logs have been sold. The matter concerning the possible replanting of the forest site and the setting up of a landfill forest reserve is the subject of a separate report to the committee.

10.2 The final net position of the forest harvest and sale is expected to be positive $1,502,000.

11.0 health and safety

11.1 The Omarunui Landfill operates under the Hastings District Council’s Health and Safety Policy. The Council’s commitment under this policy is “to keep employees, volunteers, contractors and the community safe through living a strong safety culture”.

11.2 Additional Health & Safety information, and matters relating to the performance of the landfill are the subject of a separate report to this committee.

12.0 efficiencies

12.1 A variety of efficiencies have been achieved over the last four years that have helped keep the gate charges as low as possible. The landfill will continue to look for operational and developmental efficiencies that will keep Omarunui in this favourable position. Areas that will be looked into to gain additional efficiencies include the following:

· Landfill gas extraction and the implementation of the Tonkin & Taylor recommendations.

· Management of the landfill’s obligations under the ETS.

· The access road to the tip face has been shortened. This has resulted in savings to the landfill and landfill users alike.

· Efficiencies were gained by minimising the number of times the tip face was moved

· Where possible development work was integrated with operational activities to the benefit of both cost centres.

· Making maximum use of the area designated for waste disposal.

13.0 Waste management & minimisation plan and section 17a of the Local government act

13.1 The following is for the committee’s information as these matters are being overseen by the individual councils and a different joint committee.

13.2 Hastings District Council and Napier City Council have recently carried out a joint Waste Assessment. The Waste Assessment process is designed to ensure that councils have a good understanding of current waste services and delivery outcomes. Data from recent waste surveys was used in the preparation of the assessment. The assessment is now being used to form the basis, or starting point, of a draft Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires councils to adopt a WMMP, which must be reviewed every six years. Not keeping to the statutory timeframe for a WMMP review may result in the Councils waste levy funding payments being withheld under section 33 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. The current joint HDC/NCC WMMP must be reviewed by 30 June 2018.

13.3 A WMMP is intended to be the guiding document for councils to promote and achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within their districts. The WMMP needs to contain a summary of objectives, policies and targets for waste management and minimisation. The plan should clearly communicate how the Councils will deliver on these objectives.

13.4 A joint HDC/NCC Council Waste Futures Project Steering Committee is overseeing the WMMP process.

13.5 It is planned to hold a consultation meeting with waste operators early in the new year (similar timing as in 2012), however as landfill users are meeting with landfill committee members and staff on 24 November it has been seen as a good opportunity to inform those waste operators about the WMMP review process, along with landfill updates.

13.6 Section 17A of the Local Government Act requires councils to review “the cost effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good quality local infrastructure, local public services, and the performance of regulatory functions”.

13.7 The outcome of the Section 17A reviews has been reported back to the individual councils. No changes are currently recommended in relation to the delivery of the landfill services. Consideration of any changes, if any, would only occur after a new WMMP is adopted in 2018.

14.0 financial summary

14.1 Attached to this report is the financial summary for the 3 month period ending 30 September 2017.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION

That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager, titled “3 Month Activity Report” dated 24 November 2017, be received.

Attachments:

Landfill P&L Sept 2017

CG-14-27-00017

File Ref: 17/1118

REPORT TO: Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee

MEETING DATE: Friday 24 November 2017

FROM: Waste and Data Services Manager

Martin Jarvis

Management Accountant

Jeff Tieman

SUBJECT: Omarunui Joint Landfill Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to update and inform the Committee on the physical performance aspects of the Omarunui Landfill for the 2016/2017 financial year and provide a commentary on other significant events and impacts.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Records of the various categories of waste disposed of at the landfill are recorded in the landfill’s weighbridge software system. The estimated tonnages are compared to actual tonnages in the following user categories:

	2015/16 actual (tonnes)	2016/17 actual (tonnes)	2016/17 estimated (tonnes)
Commercial	40,024	45,631	35,500
Special	7,396	9,181	5,500
HDC	11,900	13,279	11,000
NCC	16,039	16,752	15,500
Total	75,357	84,843	67,000

2.2 The overall tonnage is 27% higher than estimate, with Napier City 8% above estimate, Hastings District 21% above estimate, commercial 29% above estimate and special 67% above estimate.

2.3 Overall tonnages are 13% higher compared with last year’s tonnages. Napier City has increased 4%, Hastings District a 12% increase, commercial a 14% increase and special a 24% increase.

2.4 The category “Commercial” includes all waste brought directly into the landfill by private waste operators and excludes transfer station waste.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The Landfill reported a surplus of $3,952,938 for the financial year ended 30 June 2017. This is supported by the Omarunui Landfill Joint Committee Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2017 (attached as Attachment 1). The financial statements have been audited by Audit NZ, but formal communication of any findings have yet to be received. The surplus of $3,952,938 was $2,079,901 above budget and is summarised as follows:

2015/16 Actual	Financial Position	2016/17 Actual	2016/17 Budget	2016/17 Variance	% Variation
6,699,175	Total Revenue	8,687,894	7,431,562	1,256,332	17%
4,334,117	Total Expenditure	4,734,956	5,558,525	(823,569)	15%
2,365,058	Surplus before adjustments	3,952,938	1,873,037	2,079,901	111%

3.2 The actual compared to estimated expenditure* in operations is as follows:

EXPENDITURE	Actual $	Budgeted $	Variance $	Variation
EXPENDITURE	Actual $	Budgeted $	Variance $	Variation
Maintenance - Landfill	1,013,829	1,592,296	(578,466)	36%
Other refuse disposal	462,463	735,073	(272,610)	37%
External plant hire	421,320	500,520	(79,200)	16%
External plant hire escalations	5,729	40,000	(34,271)	86%
Leachate Treatment/Disposal	62,949	79,601	(16,652)	21%
Kiosk Charges	32,657	94,254	(61,597)	65%
Ground & Surface Water Testing	22,810	40,000	(17,190)	43%
Gas to Energy	0	4,500	(4,500)	100%
Farm operations	2,976	3,583	(606)	17%
Rates	15,586	20,300	(4,714)	23%
Overheads - Administrative	21,685	22,999	(1,314)	6%
Depreciation	1,485,385	1,487,400	(2,015)	0%
Total	3,547,389	4,620,525	(1,073,136)	23%

*Excludes waste levy and ETS

4.0 Maintenance

4.1 Maintenance work was below expected and as a result costs were under budget. A substantial amount of planned maintenance work was carried out during the year and the site is in very good shape. This included continuing work on the drains, roads, stormwater ponds, fences, storage areas, compound and landfill cap.

5.0 Refuse Disposal

5.1 Disposal costs are 37% below budget. Savings on disposal operations were generated by efficiencies at the tip face and savings generated by the integration of operational and development work on Stage 3C of Area D.

6.0 External Plant Hire

6.1 The savings in the plant hire area can be attributed to efficiencies at the tip head and the reduced number of times the tip head needed to be shifted. Furthermore the access road to the tip area is now much shorter than it has been historically and less work is required to maintain it. During the year efficiencies were also gained by the integration of development and operational earthworks.

7.0 Leachate Treatment

7.1 Leachate treatment/disposal costs were below budget by $16,652. This was partly due to the new irrigation system now operating and the reduced volume of deodoriser used during the year.

7.2 As a result of favourable weather conditions during the 2016/17 year no leachate required offsite disposal. All leachate was able to be spray irrigated.

8.0 Forest Account

8.1 Expenditure on this account was $145,119 compared with an estimate of $913,300. Revenue on this account was $1,170,123 compared with an estimate of $1,600,000. The difference between actuals and estimates was due to the late start of the harvest and that this work carried on into the new 2017/18 year.

8.2 The final net position of the forest harvest is expected to be positive $1,502,000. This will be reported upon in more detail to the Committee once the project is closed off.

8.3 The matter concerning the possible replanting of the forest site and the setting up of a landfill forest reserve is the subject of a separate report to the committee.

9.0 REVENUE

9.1 Total revenue was 14% more than estimated due to the increased volumes of waste received at the site.

Revenue* details are as follows:

REVENUE	Actual $	Budgeted $	Variance $	Variation
REVENUE	Actual $	Budgeted $	Variance $	Variation
Commercial Operations	4,059,879	2,983,806	1,076,073	36%
Forest	1,170,123	1,600,000	(429,877)	-27%
Hastings District	883,723	748,000	135,723	18%
Napier City	1,160,216	1,020,000	140,216	14%
Other Revenue (sale of gas)	40,696	65,000	(24,304)	-37%
Rentals (Farm)	4,177	9,756	(5,579)	-57%
Leachate development	84,843	67,000	17,843	27%
Total	7,403,657	6,493,562	910,095	14%

*Excludes waste levy, ETS and interest on funds

9.2 The Other Revenue category includes income from the sale of landfill gas and the power plant site lease. The revenue from the sale of gas was lower than budget due to the plant consumption levels being lower than expected. The budget for the 2018/19 gas revenue has been adjusted to reflect actual consumption.

10.0 current DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE

10.1 The development costs for the Omarunui Landfill for the 2016/2017 year were as follows:

Actual $	Budget $	Variance $	Variation %
$500,754	$1,057,000	$556,246	53%

10.2 Development costs incurred during the 2016/17 year principally related to earthworks, earth liner construction and the landfill gas capture system. One small section of liner is still to be installed in Stage 3C of Area A. This work will be completed in the 2017/18 year. Development funds not spent have been carried forward to the 2017/18 year.

11.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WORK

11.1 It is expected that a substantial amount of work will be carried out on the gas capture system in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 years. This work involves vertical extraction wells, horizontal wells and pipe network.

11.2 There is no construction work planned in 2017/18 for Area’s B and C. However, design, planning and consent related work is likely during the course of the current year. Based on current waste volumes a new landfill area (either Area B or C or an extension to Area D) will be required by 2023. To meet this deadline consenting and constructing work will need to start well before that date. An option to extend and maximise the filling area of Area D is still being developed and it is expected that more information on this will available at the next committee meeting.

12.0 WASTE LEVY

12.1 The waste levy continues to be collected at a rate of $10 per tonne and passed on to the Ministry for the Environment. At this stage there has been no indication from the government that the $10 per tonne rate will be increased.

13.0 EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME (WASTE)

13.1 The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has an impact on the gross charge rate for all waste accepted by the landfill. The additional charge to cover ETS compliance has been applied in a similar way to the waste levy and GST. Accordingly the ETS charge is added to the base disposal rate as derived by the Full Cost Accounting Model and set by the Omarunui Joint Refuse Landfill Committee. Historically ETS charges have added $4 to each tonne of waste disposed of at the landfill.

13.2 The Government has recently carried out a review of the Emissions Trading Scheme and has made some significant changes in relation to the solid waste aspect of the scheme. These changes have resulted in greater compliance costs and the ETS charge has now been lifted to $10 per tonne as of the 2017/18 year. Further increases beyond the current year have been budgeted for.

14.0 LEACHATE

14.1 The landfill has been collecting $1 per tonne to generate a reserve to directly fund the development of a permanent irrigation system and any costs relating to emergency offsite disposal situations. The balance of the leachate reserve as at 30 June 2017 was $376,754.

14.2 The landfill has been granted a new consent to spray irrigate leachate on a permanent basis. This system continues to be managed and improved upon by landfill staff.

15.0 EFFICIENCIES

15.1 Efficiencies that have had an impact in the 2016/17 year include the following:

· Efficiencies were gained by minimising the number of times the tip face was moved.

· The access road to the tip face has been shortened. This has resulted in savings to the landfill and landfill users alike.

· Where possible development work was integrated with operational activities to the benefit of both cost centres.

· Management of the landfills obligations under the ETS.

· Making maximum use of the area designated for waste disposal.

· Landfill gas extraction and landfill gas to energy.

16.0 landfill disposal cost

16.1 The base disposal charge rate for the 2016/17 year was $69 (excludes waste levy, ETS and GST). This rate was reduced to $68 per tonne for the current 2017/18 year, however an increase in the cost of meeting ETS obligations resulted in an overall increase in the gate charge. When the Waste Levy ($10) and ETS ($10) charges are added to the base rate the disposal charge becomes $88 per tonne (excluding GST). The Ministry for the Environment’s “Full Cost Accounting Model” (FCAM) is used for calculating the base charge rate so that all costs associated with operating

17.0 Landfill Liaison Committee

17.1 There have been no meetings of the Landfill Liaison Committee during the last financial year. The Landfill Liaison Committee members are invited to all Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee meetings and are sent the agendas of these meetings.

18.0 Landfill Users Meeting

18.1 A landfill users’ meeting was held on 9 December 2016. Topics for discussion included charge rates, development work, waste futures, kiosk operations and general business.

19.0 Security

19.1 Security at the site is continually reviewed. Cameras have been installed at the kiosk/weighbridge and tip face for security reasons and the policing/recording of refuse entering the facility. No break in’s to the site were recorded in the 2016/17 year.

20.0 health and safety

20.1 The Omarunui Landfill operates under the Hastings District Council’s Health and Safety Policy. The Council’s commitment under this policy is “to keep employees, volunteers, contractors and the community safe through living a strong safety culture”.

20.2 Additional Health & Safety information, and matters relating to the performance of the landfill over the course of the 2016/17 year, are the subject of a separate report to this committee.

21.0 ISO 9001 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

21.1 The quality management certification of the landfill is part of the Hastings District Council Asset Management certification.

21.2 The Asset Management quality system was externally audited for revalidation assessment on 20 February 2017 by Dan Hynson of Telarc SAI. The AS/NZS ISO 9001Certification of Registration was maintained and the expiry date of the certificate is 22 September 2018.

21.3 Two internal audits were completed during the year July 2016 to June 2017. The documented procedures were found to be working well with only minor improvements suggested.

21.4 The landfill’s objective is to comply with all consent requirements. Any non-compliance issues are reported to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) as per consent instructions and dealt with accordingly.

22.0 COMPLAINTS

22.1 Only three complaints were received during the 2016/17 year. One of the complaints was in relation to seagulls and the other two concerned odour. In respect of the birds a bird-banger was hired for a period of time to scare the birds away. With regard the odour complaints they related to excavation work in the refuse when laying new gas pipe lines. Typically, very few formal complaints are received about the landfill. Complaints traditionally concern odour, birds, speeding vehicles and litter blown from the site and off trucks. Complaints about odour are investigated by landfill staff and typically this is a result of a “smelly” load of refuse entering the site or when the need arises to excavate into existing waste mass during the course of development work (i.e. installing gas wells). The new gas extraction wells that have been installed in Area D have created a negative pressure zone in that area which has reduced the tendency for landfill gas to vent out into the open air. As not all odours in this rural location can be attributed to the landfill, wind direction information is monitored at the site so that the source of any odours can be more easily identified.

22.2 In terms of litter, the landfill policy is to pick up litter whenever required (without prompting) and from neighbouring properties following any strong winds. This proactive approach has worked well and the landfills direct neighbours very rarely complain as they know the issue will be dealt with automatically. One complaint was received during the course of the year and this was dealt with immediately.

22.3 Maintenance work on the unsealed access road is continuous and includes watering, grading and the application of suitable metal. Some verbal complaints were received about the condition of the unsealed road during the course of the year. When a complaint is received the condition of the road is re-evaluated and maintenance work is carried out as required.

23.0 waste management and Minimisation plan

23.1 The Omarunui Joint Refuse Landfill Committee members will be aware that the parent Council’s (NCC and HDC) have started work on reviewing the current Joint Waste Management & Minimisation Plan (WMMP). The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires councils to adopt a WMMP, which must be reviewed every six years. A draft WMMP will go out to public consultation in the first half of the 2018 calendar year and is required to be adopted by 30 June 2018.

24.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

24.1 After eight years of declining waste volumes, slight increases were recorded in the 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 years. However, the waste volume for last year (2016/17) totalled 84,843 tonnes and this represents an increase of 9,486 tonnes (or 12.6%) on the previous year’s total of 75,357 tonnes. The increase could possibly be attributed to increased economic activity in Hawke’s Bay.

24.2 The outcome of the Joint Waste Management and Minimisation Plan review may or may not have an impact on the Omarunui Landfill. Either way, planning and development work on Area B or C will need to commence in the near future to ensure that landfill space is available for any residual waste.

RECOMMENDATION

A) That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled “Omarunui Joint Landfill Annual Report for the year ending 30 June 2017” dated 24/11/2017 be received.

B) That the unaudited Omarunui Joint Landfill Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2017 and attached as Appendix 1 be received.

Attachments:

Omarunui Landfill annual accounts June 2017

CG-14-27-00018

File Ref: 17/1116

REPORT TO: Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee

MEETING DATE: Friday 24 November 2017

FROM: Waste and Data Services Manager

Martin Jarvis

SUBJECT: Landfill Forest

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The purpose of this report is to obtain approval from the Omarunui Refuse Landfill Joint Committee to replant the landfill forest in pinus radiata and create a reserve fund for all associated costs for the replanting and care of the forest.

1.2 This report concludes by recommending that the forest be replanted during the winter of 2018 and paid for by a landfill forest reserve.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 The landfill forest block in question is 43.2 hectares in size and was originally planted in 1992. The rational for planting was that the area was not suitable for landfilling and that the trees would absorb some of the carbon dioxide produced by the landfill, albeit symbolically. Therefore the actual financial return of the forest was never seen as the only reason for planting the area.

2.2 The forest is classified as a post 1989 forest under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) i.e. the land became forest land after 31^st December 1989. Participation in the ETS in respect of post 1989 forest is voluntary and consequently the landfill forest has not been registered in the ETS. Following the recent harvest the land will continue to be classed as post 1989 under the ETS so there are no carbon penalties should the landfill choose not to replant.

2.3 Owners of post 1989 forests who do not voluntarily participate in the ETS have no entitlements or obligations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Owners can harvest or deforest (change land use) the land without liability for the emissions and no exemptions are required. As a result of this the Councils are free to do as they please with the forest and land without any consideration of ETS obligations.

2.4 Gareth Buchanan of Woodlands Pacific Consulting Ltd (and formerly of Chandler Fraser Keating Ltd) has provided the landfill with forestry advice and assistance during the pre-harvest, sale and harvest process including the associated letting of contract work. Gareth is continuing to provide specialist forestry advice to the landfill.

3.0 CURRENT SITUATION

3.1 The harvest and sale of the landfill forest was completed in September 2017. This work was carried out by Pan Pac Forest Products Limited with an overview from Gareth Buchanan of Woodlands Pacific Consulting Ltd (WPCL). The final net position of the forest harvest and sale is expected to be positive $1,502,000.

3.2 Now that harvest operations have been completed consideration must now be given to what use the forest land can be put to. The advice from WPCL is that unless the landfill has some other use in mind for the land it should be replanted in pinus radiata.

3.3 The 43.2 hectares of land in question is not suitable to construct a landfill cell on. The topography of the site makes it very difficult to construct a large filling area and as the site is located on the eastern boundary of the landfill it is close to neighbours and substantially open to view from the north and east of the surrounding area.

3.4 The landfill forest site has never been identified as a potential filling area unlike Areas A (completed), D (current fill area) and Areas B & C which are yet to be developed. These four areas have consistently been identified as the main filling areas of the Omarunui site.

3.5 As other more suitable areas of the Omarunui landfill have been identified and are still to be developed, the landfill forest area is now available to either return to pasture or replant in shape or form. Landfilling the area is therefore not being considered as option.

3.6 As much of the forest site is not cultivatable due to dryness, soil type and topography, cultivation was not considered as a viable option.

4.0 OPTIONS

4.1 Option 1 – Replant the forest area in pinus radiata.

4.2 Option 2 – Return the forest area to pasture for grazing.

5.0 SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

5.1 The Omarunui Joint Landfill Heads of Agreement (between the Hastings District Council and the Napier City Council) has the objective to jointly develop and operate generally for the benefit of the Councils a refuse disposal facility (including any ancillary activities) in compliance with resource and regulatory consents. The agreement allows the Committee “to use any part of the Omarunui property not required for refuse disposal for any lawful purpose including the leasing thereof”.

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

6.1 Option 1 – “Replant the forest area in pinus radiata”. The replanting of the site is a valid option as the financial return of the exercise has been very profitable, especially when it is in relation to land that is essentially a buffer zone for the landfill. Additionally the trees would continue to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to some degree offset emissions from the landfill. While the landfill now has gas extraction and destruction systems that deal with emissions, it is certainly an extra and very visual way of looking after our environment. The forest area is a relatively dry site, however it now has a successful track record of growing / harvesting trees and the landfill has been advised that the same success can be expected again. While eucalypts trees could be considered for replanting the market options are more limited for these trees and therefore pinus radiata remains the recommended species of tree. The site has good access for harvesting and is located close to the Port of Napier. The cost of replanting (and ongoing care) could be paid for by way of the profit generated from the recent harvest. The cost of land preparation and planting would be in the order of $70,000, however based on earlier experience a reserve fund of $120,000 should cover the initial costs and ongoing care (insurance, valuations, pruning and expert advice) for several years. Once the reserve amount has been used all additional funds required for managing the forest will be allowed for by the landfill operational budgets.

6.2 Option 2 – “Return the forest area to pasture for grazing”. The land was previously grazed and this remains an option for the future. Other areas of the landfill are grazed under a lease arrangement, however those areas are predominately earmarked for landfilling in the future and are currently more suitable for grazing. Visually a forest will block some views of the landfill and this is since as important aspect for neighbours and landfill staff alike. Another important consideration is the cost of stump to pasture conversion which is expensive and would only add to a lower financial return for the site.

7.0 PREFERRED OPTION

7.1 The preferred option, as recommended to the Committee, is Option 1 – “Replant the forest area in pinus radiata”. The replanting of the site is seen as the most appropriate use of the land and also provides a positive financial return from land that has limited valuable use. A replanted forest would take approximately 26 years to mature. Harvest would therefore likely occur in the year 2044.

7.2 Other positive but less measurable outcomes would be the visual barrier the forest naturally provides and the absorption of carbon dioxide by the trees. Due to the nature and climate of the site pinus radiata is the preferred tree species to replant in. The site has good access for harvesting and is located close to the Port of Napier.

7.3 The cost of the replanting need not impact on landfill as funds generated from the recent harvest can be set aside and establish a landfill forest reserve. A reserve amount of $120,000 would cover land preparation, replanting and ongoing care (insurance, valuations, pruning and expert advice) for several years.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONS

A) That the report of the Waste and Data Services Manager titled “Landfill Forest” dated 24/11/2017 be received.

B) That the Omarunui Landfill forest be replanted in pinus radiata at the appropriate time during the 2018 calendar year.

C) That a Landfill Forest reserve fund of $120,000 be established within the Omarunui Landfill cost centre to cover the cost of replanting and future care of the forest. The reserve is to be funded by way of the profit generated from the sale of the forest.

With the reasons for this decision being that the objective of the decision will contribute to meeting the objectives of the Omarunui Joint Landfill Heads of Agreement which are “To jointly develop and operate generally for the benefit of the Councils a refuse disposal facility (including any ancillary activities) in compliance with resource and regulatory consents”.

Attachments:

There are no attachments for this report.

Hastings District Council

Lyndon Road East, Hastings