Agenda of Environmental Management Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Land and Water Strategy

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Strategy to the Committee for its consideration and comment.

2. The Strategy document evolved following feedback from the External Reference Group on a first draft. Because the Reference Group are only meeting on the day before the Committee meeting to review the final document, it has not yet been distributed publicly.

3. Copies will be available for interested members of the public at the meeting and a media briefing will also be held during the morning tea break following the Committee’s consideration of the item.

Strategic Context

4. The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Strategy is a document which outlines the strategic direction for the management of land and water in the region. It is a non-statutory document which means that it is not required to be prepared by law. However, it enables the region’s strategic approach to land and water management to be documented in a way that is not regimented by statutory process.

5. It sets out a range of actions that are necessary to implement it and while many of the actions fall under HBRC’s legal responsibilities, there are many other actions which fit under the mandate of other industry and statutory sector organisations

6. Many of the actions will need to be implemented through the planning provisions under the Resource Management Act. This document gives the community an early indication of how the land and water management framework might change.

Strategy Development Process

7. The Regional Water Symposium held in November 2010 began a process of community engagement on water issues in Hawke’s Bay. The symposium primarily dealt with current and emerging water quantity issues: allocation (and over-allocation); demand and supply (mismatches); and competing values – particularly environmental and economic. Future scenarios for water management and participants’ visions for Hawke’s Bay were discussed. Land use and water quality was a concern on many participants’ minds. A Symposium Report documents the outcomes of the two days.

8. At the symposium, nominations were sought for an external reference group to work with Council on the development of policy and directions for a regional water strategy. 92 nominations were received and from this 21 people were selected. The selection process aimed to ensure fair representation from industry, tangata whenua, environmental advocacy groups and statutory authorities. On 25 February 2011, Council agreed on the Terms of Reference for the group.

9. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Water Strategy External Reference Group held its first meeting on February 28th and has had five further meetings. The initial intention was to develop a high level strategy to tackle matters related water quantity in order to deal with water management issues in manageable chunks. Water quantity was the focus of the first four meetings.

10. However, land use and water quality remained a concern and was the topic of discussions during each of the meetings. In April, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was released by Government which included a requirement for Regional Councils to establish water quality targets and limits.

11. By the end of the fourth meeting, the group was ready to consider a draft strategy document and given the group’s concern that water quality and land use needed to be addressed, staff indicated that the draft strategy would cover land use, water quality and water quantity.

External Reference Group Review

12. The Reference Group has acted as a sounding board for policy direction and impacts of the policy changes suggested in the Strategy. They have also advised on the actions needed to implement the strategy. The reference group is a key building block in obtaining cross-sector agreement on future water management direction in the wider Hawke’s Bay community.

13. The Reference Group will be meeting again on Tuesday 11 October to review this final strategy document. Comments from that meeting will be given verbally to the Committee at its meeting the following date.

14. In addition, all members of the Reference Group have been invited to attend the Committee meeting and make any further comments that they may like. It will also give an opportunity for the Committee to ask any questions of the Group.

15. Staff are confident that we will be in a position that the reference group will collectively endorse the strategy and will assist Council in taking it to their respective sectors for discussion.

Contents of the Land and Water Strategy

16. The contents of the Land and Water Strategy include:

o Introduction, Purpose, Strategy Development Process

o Drivers of change

o Essential elements of managing land and water use

o Values, Guiding Principles and Evaluation Criteria

o Implementing the Strategy – Roles

o Vision

o Six themes relating to:

§ Planning and Governance

§ Sustainable Land Use

§ Sustainable Water Use

§ Information and Communication

§ Priority actions

§ Strategy Outcome and Performance Monitoring

o Summary of Catchment Values (in Appendix 2)

17. The objectives for each theme are:

Theme	Objective	Summary of approach
Planning and Governance	Government Agencies, land owners, tangata whenua and stakeholders work together towards a unified goal of sustainable land and water management	The development, implementation (with partners) monitoring and review of this strategy, partnering with tangata whenua, prioritisation of catchments, self empowering catchment groups, alignment of investments, transparent and equity in costs of water management, and appropriate transitional provisions.
Sustainable Land Use	The future viability and resilience of the wider Hawke’s Bay landscape is enhanced through improved management and land use practices	Focus on increasing the forest cover on erosion prone hill country, and improving site specific farming systems to avoid and reduce environmental effects of intensive farming. Encouraging riparian planting and fencing where appropriate and recognising the services provided by wetlands.
Sustainable Water Use	Long term prosperity of the region is provided through sustainable and efficient water use while maintaining and/or improving the overall quality of the freshwater ecosystems for agreed management objectives	Identifies the need for forward thinking and long term decision making then focuses on water allocation framework, water use, potential water demand and water quality. The water allocation framework includes recognising interconnected water bodies, high flow harvesting, promoting flexible allocation regimes, recognising efficient water use, promoting shared consents and audited self management for increased efficiency gains and recognising large scale community storage infrastructure as a critical element of sustainable solutions in constrained environments. For water use the approach focuses on efficient irrigation systems, conservation and demand strategies for urban and industrial use, measuring water use in a public transparent way and recognising efficient users. Water quality focuses on setting water quality for agreed management objectives, and targeting action where water quality is poor. Land management and riparian initiatives are repeated here from the Sustainable Use of Land section. In addition, exclusion of stock from water ways is actively sought.
Information and Communication	Relevant and timely resource information is collected and communicated in a transparent manner to all interested parties	Science and monitoring data of resource data is available in the public domain and research is available to land managers Action plans to increase community awareness of the value and importance of water
Priority actions	Actions are prioritised to areas where sustainable land management, security of water supply and water quality issues and pressures are most significant or potential economic gains can be enabled	Key issues are identified on a catchment basis, along with current work programmes
Strategy outcome and performance monitoring	Implementation of the Strategy is monitored and reported on a regular basis.	A number of indicators have been identified in the following outcome areas – land management practices, water use, water quality and ecological health, planning instruments and economic development. The implementation structure of an HBRC team / technical advisory group and the continuation of an external reference group is proposed to develop action plans, prepare monitoring reports and review the strategy.

Committee’s Review

18. Three Councillors (Crs Wilson, Scott and Remmerswaal) are members of the Reference Group and have a good understanding of how this strategy has been developed.

19. The strategy complements the Council’s Strategic Plan so it does not present new directions for the Council.

20. Councillors are encouraged to provide staff with early feedback on the strategy prior to the Reference Group meeting so that these can be discussed by the Reference Group as part of their review.

21. In addition, if there are any significant amendments that the Committee would like to suggest, it would be worthwhile that these are discussed with the members of the Reference Group who are at the meeting to get their feedback on them.

Next Steps

22. It is proposed that the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Strategy, with any amendments following discussions, is presented to the Council at the 26 October meeting for adoption.

23. It is proposed that the Land and Water Strategy will be printed and available in early November.

24. Community engagement will take the form of a 2^nd Symposium (one day) to be hosted by HBRC on Wednesday 30^th November 2011 at the War Memorial Centre. This will be almost a year to the day from the 1^st two day symposium.

25. While specific invitations will be sent to the invitees and participants of the first symposium, this event will be open to the public. However, to manage costs, it will be limited to 150 people.

26. Given the collaborative process that has been used to develop this Strategy and the level of consensus achieved between the stakeholders, the Strategy as adopted will be in its final form. However, the actions are high level and there is still further work required to identify appropriate mechanisms in many areas and discussion and feedback from the stakeholders and community in these areas will ongoing.

Financial and Resource Implications

27. The development of the Land and Water Strategy falls under Project 192 Strategy and Implementation. Budget is available for the design and printing of the Strategy (quoted $18,900 - $20,500 excl GST) and holding the 2^nd Symposium (approx $10,000.00) based on 150 participants.

Decision Making Process

28. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

28.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

28.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation. The Reference Group represented a wide range of sectors and interests and have been involved in the development of this Strategy.

28.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

28.4. The persons affected by this decision include all the regional community as they all rely on the region’s land and water for their general wellbeing. However, the primary sector community and irrigation water users are particularly affected by the strategic direction outlined in the strategy, hence the use of the Reference Group as assist in its development.

28.5. Options that have been considered include not preparing a Strategy. However, there are many benefits in preparing a land and water strategy. In particular, it provides an opportunity for early input into policy approaches that are likely to be reflected in statutory regional planning documents.

28.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

28.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Adopts the Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Strategy, subject to any amendments.

3. Endorses the 2^nd Regional Land and Water Symposium event to be held on Wednesday 30 November 2011 as the key engagement event.

4. Conveys its appreciation to the members of the External Reference Group for the time and energy they have committed to the development of the Strategy over the last 12 months.

Tim Sharp

Strategic Policy Advisor

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Draft-Embargoed Land & Water Strategy
FOR COMMITTEE INFORMATION ONLY

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Update on Taharua Strategy Feedback and Project Review

Reason For Report

1. This paper provides a progress update on the preparation of a non-statutory Strategy and subsequent plan change to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) to restore and maintain the health of the upper Mohaka River and its Taharua headwater tributary.

2. Specifically, the report discusses:

2.1. Public comments on the ‘Taharua and Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy’

2.2. A Preliminary Review of the Council’s process

2.3. A way forward.

Public Feedback On The Taharua And Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy

3. On Council’s April instruction, widespread stakeholder and general public consultation was carried out on the Taharua and Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy over the period 20 July to 22 August. The Draft Strategy encapsulates Council’s proposed approach to future management and builds on discussions with the Taharua Stakeholder Group (TSG). The consultation was designed to provide a good indication of community reaction (in and beyond Hawke’s Bay) prior to detailed policy development. The Draft Strategy is available on www.hbrc.govt.nz (search “Taharua”).

4. Staff have collated and summarised the feedback received on the Draft Strategy. A fuller draft report summarising the consultation and public comments has been pre-circulated to Councillors and members of the Council’s Maori Committee. The report will soon be published on the Council’s website.

5. Forty written responses were received from a range of respondents (Figure 1).

6. The range and frequency of issues raised is indicated in Figure 2 below.

7. An overview of comments received on each of these issues is provided below.

7.1. River decline. River users with first-hand experience of the water quality decline express frustration that anecdotal evidence appears to have been given little weight in Council’s decision-making to date.

7.2. Overall approach. Concerns are raised that the proposed “balanced approach” for healthy rivers and future viability of Taharua farms could compromise the primary objective of restoring and maintaining the integrity of the outstanding upper Mohaka river system for environmental, social, cultural and wider economic benefits. Council’s approach to limits and timeframes should embody the “precautionary principle”, given the value of rivers and scientific uncertainty.

7.3. Scope of provisions. The Strategy should take a more holistic approach to:

7.3.1. Issues. Fish and Game, the Wellington Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board (DOC Board) and others consider the Draft Strategy overly focuses on nitrogen (the existing contaminant of concern) instead of the range of factors that can impact river and riparian ecosystem health and biodiversity. This relates particularly to management objectives and water quality limits.

7.3.2. Geographical extent. There is concern the Draft Strategy does not adequately address land use and intensification risks in the neighbouring Ripia and Waipunga sub-catchments and therefore cannot protect the outstanding characteristics and features of the Water Conservation Order (WCO).

7.4. Water Conservation Order. The ambiguity of the WCO raises concern that Council is failing its statutory obligations (legal advice has clarified these complex legal obligations). Regardless of legal intricacies, the public clearly attach very high value to protection of the outstanding Mohaka River system and view the WCO as a clear expression of its value.

7.5. Management Objectives and Water Quality Limits. An ecosystem health and biodiversity approach should be made explicit in clearer, more certain objectives. Proposed limits receive less public attention than timeframes, but this may reflect their technicality. The proposed limits are critiqued by a Fish and Game commissioned report, which questions their current “fitness for purpose”.

7.6. Timeframe and progress “milestones”. The 10 year timeframe for landowner action to meet 15 year water quality targets is widely opposed as too long (note: economic assessment of the likely difficulty of meeting targets was not available to inform discussion). More frequent landowner progress “milestones” should be considered to prevent slippage.

7.7. Regulation and enforcement. Use of regulation to manage Taharua and other sensitive catchments is strongly supported. Opinion is divided on the form this should take. Many support a strong and prescriptive regulatory approach, focussed inputs (e.g. cow numbers, fertiliser), but others advocate a more flexible, “outputs” approach. Regulation must be backed by effective compliance monitoring and enforcement, which is considered too weak to date.

7.8. Dairy restriction or removal. Many respondents consider dairy an inappropriate Taharua land use due to the catchment’s physical characteristics. Suggested responses range from limiting future dairying to complete removal over time.

7.9. Monitoring and research. Effective monitoring programmes must be developed upfront to inform progress and timely review (ecosystem health/water quality, farm systems adaptation, dairy compliance, plan effectiveness).

7.10. Land and riparian management. Land management should address a range of catchment issues, not just nitrogen. This should include phosphorus management, soil health and retention, biodiversity and riparian/wetland enhancement.

7.11. Financial concerns. Many support a strong “polluter pays” approach, with the onus on dairy farms to pay for river clean-up. Others suggest financial assistance may be appropriate and necessary, given the potential scale of the task and Council’s role in the catchment’s development history.

7.12. Partnership approach. Council’s partnership with the TSG is widely, if not unanimously, supported providing there is sufficient evidence of progress in restoring river health and adequate opportunity for public and other stakeholder input.

8. In summary, the public consultation highlights important issues for the Council to consider in finalising its Taharua and Upper Mohaka Strategy and developing the statutory plan change. Three key questions are discussed below:

8.1. Should plan change provisions be extended to the Ripia and Waipunga catchments?

Extension of plan change provisions to the neighbouring Ripia catchment has merit. The outstanding trout fishery cannot be adequately restored and maintained without this. Developing a Ripia framework may not be too complicated as: proposed limits would be met (current water quality is good); key landowners (not all) are on the TSG; and possible regulation of land use change/intensification could be limited to permitted activity, subject to conditions, or controlled activity status.

Addressing the Waipunga catchment, which impacts mid-Mohaka water quality^{^[1]}, is problematic. Issues and values in the middle reach are currently not well understood and differ from the upper Mohaka. Sediment/clarity issues are likely linked with natural vegetation and forestry. An increasing nitrogen trend may be linked with dairy in Bay of Plenty region. A full “Taharua-style” stakeholder process may be required to establish water quality targets and an inter-regional management framework.

8.2. What is an effective suite of management objectives and water quality limits?

Improved objectives will be developed with key stakeholders (e.g. Fish and Game, DOC) and the TSG that reflect Council’s intended “ecosystem approach.” Suites of water quality limits will be investigated, with appropriate independent review (note: establishing phosphorus limits may be problematic). Staff agree that nitrogen management alone (albeit the key elevated nutrient) will not ensure future health of the rivers. There is merit in developing a strategy and plan change which ensures effective phosphorus, soil, riparian and wetland management.

8.3. What is an appropriate timeframe for action?

Any decision on the timeframe needs to be informed by assessment of on-farm costs of meeting targets and wider cost-benefits. On-farm assessment to date indicates a shorter timeframe may be achievable, but considerable uncertainties have arisen (15.1 below). A shorter timeframe may require financial assistance or see a shift back to a typical adversarial plan change process with parties being more entrenched in their respective interests and positions. Furthermore, eroding existing use rights could be deemed unreasonable under s.85 of the Resource Management Act (RMA).

9. Staff will need to systematically work through these complex issues with key parties and the TSG and report back to Council. This essential work has implications for the plan change timeframe, particularly if the scope of the plan change is to be significantly extended.

Review Of Policy Development Process To Date

10. In light of issues raised by the public and with plan change notification targeted for end 2011, staff commissioned Rob van Voorthuysen to undertake a preliminary review of Council’s progress toward systematic policy development. Rob van Voorthuysen is very experienced in this area of land use planning having acted as Hearings Commissioner for the Horizons’ One Plan and provided expert planning evidence on Environment Waikato’s Variation 5 (Lake Taupo). He is currently providing similar advice to ECan’s Commissioners on managing diffuse nutrient discharges. Rob van Voorthuysen’s report is included as Attachment 1.

11. Issues highlighted by the public consultation are confirmed by the van Voorthuysen review. The review also confirms that Council still needs to undertake a significant body of work if a systematic policy development process is to be followed. This is particularly the case for policy development Step 3: identifying the full range of potential solutions; codifying the preferred solution within a draft plan change; and justifying it in an accompanying RMA s.32 report.

12. Progress with some critical “Step 3” work streams identified by the review are examined below.

13. Determining the required reduction in catchment nitrogen load. NIWA’s Mohaka nitrogen model is critical, but substantial delivery delays and checking of model inputs, assumptions and limitations have delayed policy discussions. This time-consuming model building work has been necessary as model outputs will inform the plan change and must withstand scrutiny in the Environment Court. Staff are now confident that the model provides a satisfactory starting point (to be refined over time) and the final report is available. The van Voorthuysen report’s recommended steps in section 5(f) can now be carried out as priority work to inform TSG discussion. If required, the model can inform policy development in other upper Mohaka sub-catchments.

14. Allocation of nitrogen discharge allowances. This is an essential component of the plan change, but discussions with landowners have been delayed by the NIWA model (above). Meaningful discussion also requires understanding of the financial implications of the task for individual landowners. This major area of uncertainty is discussed below, but could hold up policy development for considerable time.

15. Economic analysis of benefits and costs of restoring river health. The van Voorthuysen report confirms that this work is essential to justify a preferred plan change approach. Inadequate analysis risks Environment Court challenge and potential plan modification, deletion or replacement, particularly if any controls render existing uses of land incapable of reasonable use (RMA s85). Staff are progressing the two components required for robust economic analysis:

15.1. Understanding on-farm costs. Staff are working with consultants, landowners and DairyNZ to evaluate options to reduce nitrogen leaching on two of the three dairy farms (meaningful assessment of the farm in receivership is not possible). The consultants are examining additional options and a report is likely in November. Reducing nitrogen leaching could theoretically take two paths, but each appear to have some obstacles:

· Approach 1: Reduce intensity of farm system: modelling indicates that by reducing stocking rates, fertiliser inputs and production, farmers may be able to significantly reduce nitrogen leaching while maintaining profitability. However, key uncertainties need addressing: the viability of pasture under low/zero fertiliser regimes (the physical characteristics of the catchment may result in system crash); confidence in Overseer leaching estimates; and lending institutions’ acceptance of this approach (see below).

· Approach 2: Investing in farm infrastructure: use of stand-off pads and herd homes to reduce leaching is being modelled. Investment of this magnitude would mean productivity and profitability would need to increase, therefore more stock. Again, initial discussions suggest banks may not support such additional investment under their current lending regimes.

15.1.2. Bank lending policy. Two rural banking managers (one involved with the farms) have indicated bank lending policies may restrict farmers from reducing nitrogen losses by either of the above approaches. This has potentially far reaching implications. It is intended that the Chief Executive will initiate high-level dialogue with the banks. Local bank representatives will also need to be invited to be part of Taharua farm system discussions.

15.1.3. Viability of alternative land uses. Consultants have been engaged to examine forestry as an alternative land use within the Taharua catchment. This will inform future catchment management options. The relative merits of forestry and extensive pasture (beef/deer) needs to be investigated as Westervelt (Poronui), are seeking flexibility to replace existing, unviable eucalypt forest. This complicates landowner negotiations and could substantially increase the reduction task for dairy farmers. If alternative forestry is attractive, this may assist negotiations.

15.1.4. Clean-up Fund. It is possible that landowners could be assisted in making necessary changes by the Government’s recently announced ‘Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund.’ Staff will apply to the Ministry for the Environment by the 31 October deadline for a share of the currently unallocated national “pot” of $9 million over 2 years. MfE officials advise that successful regional councils will be notified late January/early February 2012.

15.2. Understanding wider benefits/costs. If improving water quality results in a significant cost for the landowners, then Council needs to understand the cost-benefit relationship on a wider catchment and regional level. That is, what are the benefits (tangible and intangible) to other landowners, businesses and the community, and do they outweigh the costs? This is important Environment Court evidence, but is a complex and potentially costly task. Initial discussion with specialised resource economists suggests between 3-6 months and $30-60k+, may be required, although a “bare minimum” approach may be possible.

16. Development of plan objectives, policies, rules and other methods. The van Voorthuysen report advises that for a systematic policy development process, Council must address issues highlighted in Step 1 (management objectives) and Step 2 (problem definition) before Step 3 (policy selection) and this needs to be further progressed before staff can meaningfully start developing the policy framework.

17. In the meantime staff have been examining plan change options, the format it might take within the RRMP, including possible wording of objectives and policies consistent with the Draft Strategy.

Taking Stock And Way Forward

18. Until recently, staff had an optimistic view that with the benefits of a relatively small catchment area and a small number of stakeholders, collaboration would see progress made quicker than a traditional, typically adversarial approach to changing regional plans. But the van Voorthuysen report clearly confirms the complexities of dealing with catchment-based responses to diffuse nutrient leaching and resultant water quality problems.

19. Despite Taharua’s size, technical complexities are similar to those encountered with the Taupo, Rotorua Lakes and Horizons-Manawatu (OnePlan) regimes. In important respects, the challenge is even greater and precedent setting insofar as:

19.1. it could be the first regulatory regime in the country requiring existing farmers to reduce nutrient loadings to meet water quality targets (ie: not just a ‘cap’ on nutrients);

19.2. there is currently no multi-million dollar government-approved fund allocated to facilitating nutrient reductions (unlike that available for Lake Taupo and Rotorua lakes); and

19.3. Council is looking for upfront agreement to such a framework, through the TSG partnership, to minimise potentially substantial Environment Court delays and enable real ongoing catchment improvements.

20. The van Voorthuysen report comments that a more feasible timeframe for notification of a plan change than the current deadline of end-2011 could be mid-2012, if sufficient Council resources are available to undertake the remaining work identified in that report. However, given the complexity of the issues and possible policy responses, together with Council’s commitment to a collaborative process with the TSG, staff are reluctant to commit to a new date without a comprehensive review.

21. Staff consider there to be no obvious ‘shortcuts’ to the policy development process. Basically, all work underway is critical to informing finalising the Strategy and preparing a plan change for the Taharua and upper Mohaka Rivers.

22. Given the complexity of the resource management issue to be resolved and the significant implications of the options available, staff propose seeking more comprehensive advice on policy development steps, assessment of resource requirements (both within existing budgets and if any new resources would be necessary), assessment of realistic timeframes for notification and legal advice on implications of RMA s.85 (compensation). The advice would build upon the preliminary van Voorthuysen report, together with this report, particularly in terms of assessing resource requirements and resultant timeframes.

23. Staff also propose regular progress reporting during the remaining phases of finalising the ‘Taharua and Upper Mohaka Strategy’ and preparation of a change to the Regional Resource Management Plan for this catchment. Staff propose presenting progress report summaries to future meetings of the Environmental Management Committee (and then the Regional Planning Committee once operational). On this basis, the next progress summary is proposed to be presented to the Committee’s meeting in February 2012.

Decision Making Process

24. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

24.1 The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

24.2 Consultation requirements are set out in the Resource Management Act and are being followed for the process.

24.3 The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

24.4 The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke's Bay regional community.

24.5 Options that have been considered in relation to the public comment on Taharua and Upper Mohaka Strategy relate to: (a) refining management objectives and water quality limits; (b) extension of geographical scope to Ripia and Waipunga sub-catchments; and (c) the timeframe for action to meet water quality limits and progress milestones.

24.6 Options that have been considered in relation to the Taharua plan change relate to: (a) timing of notification by the end of 2011; and deferral of notification pending fuller assessment of issue complexities, resourcing requirements; realistic timeframes for notification and availability of crucial information to inform collaborative policy development with the TSG.

24.7 The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

24.8 Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Notes public feedback received on the ‘Taharua and Upper Mohaka Draft Strategy’.

3. Receives the van Voorthuysen report (Attachment 1) and notes its conclusion that notification of a Taharua-upper Mohaka plan change by end 2011 is unrealistic.

4. Notes the complexity of the planning environment with respect to managing land uses for water quality enhancement purposes.

5. Agrees that staff continue to compile the information required in order to prepare a robust statutory plan change and associated section 32 evaluation.

6. Agrees that for future Environmental Management Committee meetings, staff present updates outlining progress on significant work streams and that at the February 2012 meeting a comprehensive programme for completion of a robust statutory plan change is prepared for the Committee’s consideration.

Chris Reed

Senior Planner

Brendan Powell

Land Management Officer Intensive Land Use

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

1 View

Taharua Upper Mohaka Policy Development Process

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Regional Policy Statement "Built Environment" Plan Change Update

Reason For Report

1. This report provides an update on preparation of the ‘Built Environment’ Change to the Regional Policy Statement (RPS). Staff had previously indicated that a final draft plan change could be presented to this Committee meeting, but staff now consider it premature to do so until additional work is undertaken.

Update

2. This report follows on from a report presented to the Environmental Management Committee in August 2011. The Committee had endorsed a draft proposal changing the RPS to address management of the built environment.

3. Since the August meeting, several actions have occurred, most notably:

3.1. Staff revised the Draft Change to accommodate matters arising at the Committee meeting;

3.2. Draft Change was circulated to a range of key stakeholders inviting their feedback (originally by 30 September which was a tight timeframe), now extended to 20 October;

3.3. Draft Change and explanatory material posted on Council website;

3.4. Advisory notice given to submitters on HPUDS referring to material on website;

3.5. Draft Change presented to HPUDS Implementation Committee meeting on 13 September;

3.6. Drafting underway to prepare a s32 Evaluation summary report on the RPS Change; and

3.7. Legal review of Draft Change commissioned and underway.

4. An initial deadline of 30 September for stakeholder and public feedback was tight and has since been extended to 20 October. This consequently meant feedback would not ‘fit’ timing to finalise a Draft Change and present a ‘Final Draft Change’ to the Committee’s 12 October 2011 meeting. However follow-up actions as a result of the HPUDS Implementation Committee also meant a need to extend the timeframes for notification.

Hastings District Council’s intensification assessment

5. Hastings District Council expect that its urban intensification assessment^{^[2]} will be completed shortly. This will complement the assessment and identification of future greenfield growth areas nominated in HPUDS and embedded in the Draft RPS Change.

HPUDS Implementation Committee (IC)

6. The Draft RPS Change was presented to the HPUDS IC on 13 September. The matter urban limits being defined in the RPS was discussed at length. The HPUDS IC requested that the HPUDS TAG^{^[3]} (technical advisory group) to look at how urban limits could be mapped/represented in a way that provided clear direction in the face of private plan change requests and resource consent applications etc, while also providing flexibility in relation to district plan changes. Regional Council staff have requested specific legal advice on the implications associated with mapping and/or defining urban limits in the RPS. Advice has also been sought now on any legal implications for territorial authorities and district plans if the RPS were to map greenfield growth areas using one of several styles (ie: with same approximation as mapped in HPUDS; with indicative location ‘X’ markers only; or a hybrid style).

7. Given the importance of getting this right in the RPS, the HPUDS TAG have taken a ‘make haste slowly’ approach. Regional Council staff support this approach and now propose to bring the plan change back to the Council for consideration and adoption in November.

Steps to Notification

8. The steps to be taken before content of a draft RPS Change can be finalised and adopted include:

8.1. incorporation of comments and recommendations arising from the legal review by Simpson Grierson;

8.2. incorporation of feedback from key stakeholders and wider public;

8.3. clarification of how the RPS Change can define future greenfield growth areas and urban limits for the Heretaunga Plains sub-region;

8.4. completion of project by Hastings District Council on intensification to complement RPS Change’s provisions that relate to urban intensification, greenfield growth in limited circumstances, limited rural lifestyle developments, and provision of appropriate infrastructural services; and

8.5. finalising s32 evaluation summary report, particularly accommodating any revisions arising from feedback and legal review.

9. Staff anticipate that a final draft change and supporting section 32 report for the Committee’s consideration (incorporating public feedback and legal reviews) will be finalised in time to present to the last scheduled committee meeting day of 2011 – the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee meeting on 16 November. This timing would mean the Council could choose to adopt the Change and notify it prior to Christmas.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

10.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

10.2. Consultation requirements for plan changes are set out in the Resource Management Act and those are being followed for this Draft RPS Change.

10.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke's Bay regional community.

10.5. Options that have been considered include to postpone consideration of documents to Change the RPS for managing the built environment; or to adopt the documents in their current state before feedback and legal reviews are complete.

10.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

10.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees to defer the adoption of a ‘Built Environment’ Change to the RPS until a meeting of the Environmental Management Committee to be scheduled following the Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee meeting on 16 November 2011.

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Air Quality Plan Change

Reason For Report

1. Appeals against Council’s decisions on Change 2 to the Regional Resource Management Plan have virtually all been settled without the need for an Environment Court hearing. This report seeks Council’s in-principle agreement that Change 2 should be declared operative from 1 January 2012, providing appeals are settled within the next few weeks.

2. Once operative, Change 2 will give impetus to Council’s efforts to improve air quality in the Napier and Hastings Airsheds. Results of monitoring PM₁₀ concentrations during the past winter show some positive aspects compared to previous years but a downward trend in concentrations needs to be firmly established to meet the National Environmental Standards (NES) in 2016 in Napier and 2020 in Hastings.

Background

3. Change 2 and Variation 2 were proposed so that measures could be introduced to help residents of Hawke’s Bay enjoy good air quality throughout the year. Monitoring shows that on occasions during winter air quality in the Napier and Hastings Airsheds reach levels that breach the NES and the primary cause is the burning of wood for domestic heating.

4. Three appeals were lodged against Council’s decisions on Change 2 and Variation 2. The appeal by Horticulture NZ was settled earlier this year. Napier City Council withdrew its appeal in August 2011 resulting in no amendments to Change 2 or Variation 2.

5. At the time of writing, an agreement signed by Solid Energy NZ Limited and all relevant parties was about to be presented to the Court. The Environment Court will process that agreement before issuing its approval (known as a ‘Consent Order’) to settle the appeal by Solid Energy NZ Limited.

6. Appeals on Variation 2 to the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan have also been similarly settled. However, the same steps do not apply to Variation 2 because Variation 2 amends a proposed plan that itself is not yet operative.

7. Assuming the Court does approve the signed Solid Energy appeal agreement, all matters in appeals will be settled in a matter of weeks. This means all provisions in Change 2 will be 'beyond challenge' and then deemed operative. The last remaining procedural step requires Council to “approve” Change 2 and declare the Change “operative” from a specific date.

8. A copy of Change 2 is attached. The attachment highlights the last few provisions pending settlement of the appeal by Solid Energy NZ Limited.

Making The Plan Operative

9. A Council resolution is required to make Change 2 operative. For Change 2 to become operative, the Council must first formally ‘approve’ the change and then decide on a date from when the Change is operative. The Council must then give public notice of the date from which Change 2 will become operative.

10. This decision is merely a procedural step. It is not an opportunity to re debate the content of Change 2. If Council is inclined to now modify some or all of the content of Change 2, then that must follow due process as a separate plan change – not an add on at this step in the process.

Rule 18h - Time Of Sale Rule

11. Some parts of Change 2 are already ‘beyond challenge’ such as Rule 18h (commonly referred to as the ‘time of sale rule’). However, the wording of Rule 18h means that it will not come into force until the Council declares Change 2 operative and specifies a date from which provisions in Change 2 become operative.

12. Rule 18h applies to properties only within the Napier Airshed or Hastings Airshed. Rule 18h prohibits the use of any non-compliant burner on a property after that property has been transferred (sold), effectively meaning new occupants can only use alternative cleaner home heating options.

13. Rule 18h comes into force after the rule is made operative. In order for this to happen, the Council needs to resolve that Change 2 is to be made ‘operative’ and must give notice of a date when the Change becomes operative.

Setting An Operative Date

14. Staff recommend that Council agree in-principle that the operative date for Change 2 (so Rule 18h consequently comes into force) be set at 1 January 2012, given uncertainty over exactly how long it may take the Court to approve the signed Solid Energy appeal agreement. Agreeing an in-principle date will provide a lead in time of nearly three months (October – December) before Rule 18h potentially comes into force.

15. Setting the operative date at 1 January 2012 will mean that Rule 18h, the open fire phase-out date; and the operative date for Change 2 will all occur on the same day.

16. Staff propose that this in-principle date of 1 January 2012 will be confirmed at a scheduled Council meeting in November or December once the Court approves the Solid Energy appeal agreement. Equally, the date can be revisited in the unlikely event that the Court does not accept the signed agreement.

17. A communications strategy has recently been prepared for the purposes of communicating the implications and timing of Rule 18h ahead of the prohibition coming into force. The communications strategy features details of Rule 18h being sent out with rates notices (but not any details of precisely when the rule comes into force); a story published in the Council’s newsletter; and a media release informing media readers/listeners of the burner phase-out rules no longer being subject to appeals. The communications strategy also identifies staff having targeted discussions with branch representatives of real estate agents, Hawke's Bay valuers and conveyancing lawyers after Council adopts in-principle a specific operative date.

Trends In Pm₁₀ Concentrations

18. The Council has two sites that are dedicated to permanent and continuous monitoring of PM₁₀ concentrations, one at St John’s College in the Hastings Airshed and the other at Marewa Park in the Napier Airshed. Both have been operating since 2006 and both have recorded 24 hour averaged PM₁₀ concentrations in excess of the NES (50µgm^-3) every year during winter months. Repeated failure to meet the NES reinforces the need for Change 2 (and Variation 2) to work alongside the financial assistance offered by Council for conversions to clean heating.

19. Figure 1 shows the number of times the NES has been exceeded in Hastings each winter since 2006. In 2011 there were 12 such occasions. This equals the previous lowest total recorded in 2009 despite there being a greater prevalence of cool, calm conditions (or ‘characteristic days’) which are conducive to high PM₁₀ concentrations. The maximum and average concentrations across the winter were below those recorded in the previous five years.

Figure 1: Hastings Airshed PM₁₀ trends

20. In Figure 2, PM₁₀ concentrations in Napier exceeded the NES on four occasions this year (see graph below), which is one more than occurred in the previous two years however cool, calm days were more common. The maximum concentration was the second lowest since 2006 and the winter average concentration fell below all other years.

Figure 2: Napier Airshed PM₁₀ trends

21. Normalised PM₁₀ concentrations, adjusted to account for varying meteorological conditions, are trending downward in Hastings while Napier’s results this year were very similar to last year.

22. PM₁₀ monitoring this year shows some encouraging signs that Council’s initiatives to date to improve air quality may be having some effect, particularly in Hastings, but significant decreases in ambient concentrations of PM₁₀ are needed to meet the NES. Any downward trend in concentrations should gain more traction once rules in Change 2 become operative.

Summary

23. Agreement in-principle is sought to adopt Change 2 and the date at which the Change will become operative so that an appropriate lead-in time can be given to residents and property advisors regarding the ‘time of sale’ rule (Rule 18h). Once the last appeal has been settled, the Change and the operative date will be submitted directly to a Council meeting for adoption.

Decision Making Process

24.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

24.2. Consultation requirements for plan changes are set out in the Resource Management Act and have been followed for Change 2.

24.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

24.4. The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke's Bay regional community.

24.5. Options that have been considered include to approve Change 2; not approve Change 2; and to approve in-principle pending confirmation of signed appeal agreements from the Environment Court; and selection of various possible operative dates.

24.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

24.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Subject to the Environment Court issuing a Consent Order settling the appeal by Solid Energy NZ Limited:

2.1. Agree in-principle to approve Change 2 (Air Quality) to the Regional Resource Management Plan in accordance with Clause 17 Schedule 1 of RMA; and

2.2. Agree in-principle that Change 2 become operative from 1 January 2012.

3. Receives the information about PM₁₀ concentration trends within the Napier and Hastings Airsheds.

Belinda Riley

Senior Planner

Kathleen Kozyniak

Senior Scientist Climate & Air

Graham Sevicke-Jones

ACTING GROUP MANAGER

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1 View

Change 2 for In-Principle Approval as Operative

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Plan Change Process for Heretaunga Zone - Integrated Catchment Management

Reason For Report

1. The purpose of this report is to bring to the Committee’s early attention the proposal to address the scheduled review of the minimum flow and allocation limits of the Karamu Stream as part of an integrated catchment approach for the wider Heretaunga Zone.

2. This report gives an overview of the issues only. As part of an integrated catchment management approach, a more detailed project programme needs to be developed.

3. This report also provides useful background to the Council’s Long Term Plan workshop on Thursday 13^th October 2011.

The Heretaunga Zone

4. Figure 1 defines the Heretaunga Zone used for the section 36 charges and it generally includes the catchment and areas that, from a surface water and groundwater management perspective, need to be managed in a holistic and integrated way.

5. It includes the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system which extends from the southern edges of Napier to Te Awanga and inland to the hills. This is a large highly productive complex aquifer system with confined, unconfined and artesian conditions.

6. The map includes the Ahuriri Estuary and Poraiti Hills aquifer and further analysis is required to determine whether that area should be included from an integrated water management perspective.

7. There are a number of rivers that flow over the plains and may loose water to the aquifer system or may gain water from the aquifer via springs. Some of these rivers have their headwaters in the ranges (Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro), some from the surrounding lowland hills (Tutaekuri-Waimate and the Karamu/Clive).

8. The name Heretaunga also reflects the association that tangata whenua with the name of Heretaunga when it referred to a much larger area than it does now

Figure 1: Heretaunga Zone in green

Resource Consents and Expiry Dates

9. There are a total of 3679 current consents in the Heretaunga zone representing approximately half of the region consented activity. Of these, 2561 (approx. 70%) relate to taking, use damming and diverting of surface water and groundwater.

10. Of the 2561, the bulk of the Ngaruroro River and Maraekakaho takes expire in 2015 along with the Twyford groundwater takes that are considered to be stream depleters, with the vast majority of the groundwater takes from the unconfined part of the Heretaunga Plains expiring in 2019. The majority of the surface and groundwater takes in the Tutaekuri River catchment expire in 2018.

11. Only some 30 consents expire in 2013. These are in the Karamu river catchment (excluding the Poukawa catchment) and have been the driver for the scheduled Karamu Plan change. These consents were granted with a five year term to allow for further scientific investigations to be undertaken in regard to reviewing the minimum flow and allocatable volumes.

12. Since then, the Twyford consent renewal process has further highlighted the interconnectedness of the surface water and groundwater systems. How this interconnectedness is managed across the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system and the surface waterbodies that are linked with it (ie the Upper Karamu (Paritua, Karewarewa, Irongate), Ngaruroro, Tutaekuri-Waimate and Tutaekuri Rivers) will be a key element to address and requires an integrated approach.

Water Use Information

13. The Twyford consent process also highlighted the lack of real time data about how much water is used and needed particularly by irrigators across the Heretaunga Plains. Better knowledge is required in order to better inform scientific investigations, policy development and the implications of policy decisions.

Storage Prefeasibility Study

14. Council has undertaken a prefeasibility study for storage in the Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments. As yet it is unclear how storage or water augmentation may fit into the overall water management for the Heretaunga zone, but further exploration is required in this area.

Groundwater Science

15. A robust groundwater model will be critical tool in understanding how the resources work together and for developing appropriate policy. Staff have reviewed the current steady state and transient model and have identified some issues with it which means that in its current form, it is not a reliable tool for policy setting (or water management) and would not withstand scrutiny in the Environment Court.

16. Based on the development of the Ruataniwha model, it could take some 3 years to bring the groundwater model to the point where it would withstand Environment Court challenge. An interim option, which would require correction of recharge data and boundary conditions, would mean that a better output could be produced in terms of water budget and groundwater levels but this would not assist with understanding the groundwater and surface water interaction and the values that may be affected by water level changes.

17. More detail on the work programme for the groundwater model will form part of the Long Term Plan process.

Surface Water Hydrology

18. Currently, there is no accepted scientific methodology for assessing in-stream flow requirements of aquatic species in lowland springfed streams such as the Karamu Stream. Work is being done as part of a national project and the Karamu Stream is part of that project. It is also being looked at as part of the Twyford appeal process.

19. In addition, as part of a regional quality assurance programme for HBRC’s flow monitoring sites, audits are required for key Heretaunga flow sites. These cost in the order of $32,000 per site.

Planning Issues

20. At this point, there is a lack of scientifically based data on which to base a review of the minimum flow and allocation limits with any certainty that it would improve the environmental or value outcome.

21. There is a risk that proceeding with a plan change which sets a revised allocation limit and minimum flow might impact on or undermine future integrated water management regimes.

22. The workload associated with plan change processes for science staff should not be under-estimated. Now that work has started on the technical elements of policy development for the Tukituki River catchment plan change, it is clear that there is significant follow-up reporting required of science staff, particularly if they will be presenting evidence at hearings. Given the similar nature of the plan change, it is the same staff that would be required to produce supporting scientific documentation for a Karamu plan change.

23. The implication of not proceeding with a plan change in time for 2013 renewals is that the consents will need to be renewed based on current plan provisions. In order to avoid a repeat of the last process which involved notification and hearings, we will need to work with consent holders and key stakeholders to agree on a streamlined approach to reconsenting those consents without undue costs.

Submitters to the Karamu Consents

24. Te Taiwhenua O Heretaunga was the only submitter to the consent applications which resulted in short term consents being granted. Staff have spoken with the Taiwhenua (Marei Apatu) about the planning issues associated with notifying a plan change in time for these consent renewals. Staff have also spoken with the Department of Conservation and Fish and Game NZ.

25. These stakeholders are accepting of the issues and the tight timeframes associated with a plan change for the Karamu Catchment. They also recognise the work Council is doing through the Land and Water Strategy to set out the strategic direction for managing land and water use. There is a willingness to work through a process for streamlining the consent renewal process.

Integrated Catchment Management for the Heretaunga Zone

26. A scoping exercise needs to be undertaken for the development of an Integrated Catchment Management programme of the Heretaunga Zone. This workshop would involve Council staff and councillors and external stakeholders. It would usefully be facilitated by someone with experience in Integrated Catchment Management. This would assist in our understanding of the scope of such a project, the timeframe, who needs to be involved and in what role and so on.

Financial and Resource Implications

27. Further detail of the financial and resource implications associated with Integrated Catchment management for the Heretaunga Zone will be provided as part of the Long Term Plan process.

Decision Making Process

28.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

28.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.

28.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

28.4. The persons affected by this decision are the Heretaunga zone communities, specifically land managers and water users.

28.5. Options that have been considered include proceeding with the Karamu stream plan change separately, or considering the Karamu plan change as part of an integrated catchment management approach.

28.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

Recommendations

The Environmental Management Committee recommends that Council:

2. Agrees that a plan change to review the allocation limits and minimum flows for the Karamu Stream be delayed to enable an integrated catchment approach to the Heretaunga Zone.

3. Instructs staff to work with stakeholders and consent holders of consents which expire on 2013 to find a mutually acceptable arrangement that would enable the consents to be processed on a non-notified basis.

4. Instructs staff to hold a scoping workshop for Integrated Management of the Heretaunga Zone.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environmental Management Committee

Wednesday 12 October 2011

SUBJECT: Water Quality Trends in Hawke's Bay 1998-2011

Reason For Report

1. The purpose of this report is:

1.1. To inform Council on the current state and trends of key surface water quality parameters using the examples of nitrate-nitrogen (NO₃) and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP).

1.2. To highlight some weaknesses in the existing water quality monitoring programme that limit Council’s ability to deliver on their strategic goals.

1.3. To highlight the importance of the State of the Environment (SoE) programme in supporting Council’s Regional Goals and Strategic Direction.

Background

2. The current Hawke's Bay Regional Council's SoE river monitoring programme consists of 72 sites monitored routinely throughout the region. The standard sampling regime is quarterly water quality measurements. Analysis and reporting of the results follows a 5 yearly cycle. The next detailed regional SoE review of surface water quality is due in 2014.

3. The programme reflects recommendations from the 2006 SoE review and NIWA commissioned frequency analysis.

4. An interim, region wide analysis of state and trends was undertaken to inform Council to support strategic development and to assist in providing information to operational activities e.g. land services for prioritisation and effectiveness of programmes. Preliminary results will be part of the presentation.

Methods

Trend and State Analysis

5. Key water quality variables were analysed for state and trends based on the following:

5.1. Summaries of state, based on percentage of compliance with Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) and Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) (ANZECC) guideline levels, were assessed for the period September 2008 to September 2011 (last 3 years approximating current state).

5.2. Trends were analysed for SoE sites (54 in total, including 6 sites sampled by NIWA) containing data spanning the period 1998-2010. At least ten years of data is generally required for a robust trend analysis in light of the historic and current quarterly sampling frequency (discussed in more detail shortly).

Data Display

6. Sites were classified into “increasing”, “decreasing” and “stable trend” classes, when significant trends were determined. Symbols where assigned for each trend class (displayed as: arrow up, arrow down and square respectively). Remaining sites were defined with “no significant trend” and displayed as a circle.

7. Water quality ‘state’ classes were defined using the percentage of compliance (as described under 5.1) in line with the following: >80% compliance, 80-50% compliance, <50% compliance (displayed in green, amber and red respectively).

8. Classes described in 6 and 7 were merged and displayed in ArcGIS for each variable. One coloured symbol being displayed for each site (e.g. green arrow up, upward trend, but >80% compliance with guidelines). Maps were generated for each variable and selected examples will be shown as part of the presentation.

Results

In the Case of NO₃ and SRP

9. In the case of NO₃ and SRP, the trend analysis resulted in “no significant trend” for a large number of the SoE sites. This reflects an indeterminate result with no capacity to conclude an increasing, decreasing or stable trend over the time period analysed.

10. Nine sites showed a significant increasing trend for NO₃and four sites a significant decreasing trend; seven sites showed a significant increasing trend for SRP and seven sites a significant decreasing trend. No sites returned a significant stable trend.

11. Four NO₃-sites and five SRP-sites that returned significant trends were sampled by NIWA at a higher (monthly) frequency returning roughly 4 times more data points than HBRC sampled sites. HBRC sites at which trends could be determined were generally sites where data was also collected monthly (e.g Taharua).

12. The lack of statistically significant trends (increasing, decreasing or stable) is largely an artefact of the frequency of sampling. Increasing sampling frequency from quarterly to monthly for key SoE sites would greatly improve Council’s capacity to report on trends, and in turn plan effectiveness.

13. The current standard SoE surface water sampling routine, based on quarterly sampling, does not provide sufficient data for sound statistical analysis over the five yearly reporting cycle. Monthly sampling is more likely to provide for robust data aligned with the regional reporting period and enable consistency with national monitoring.

14. Increased sampling frequency and subsequently robust trends and state analysis would provide for:

14.1. The opportunity to report “changing state and trend”, based on a fixed (defined) time period to inform Council and the public of the most recent state and trends of their water resources.

14.2. Iterative decision-making: Evaluating results of actions (e.g. land management) and adjusting actions on the basis of state and trend analysis. This could be coupled with historic and current landuse information to ensure legacy effects were appropriately characterised.

14.3. Improved capacity to assess trends over the SoE reporting period (5 years).

14.4. Stronger statistical conclusions.

14.5. Sound data for decision making process (strategic development, operational activities and statutory processes).

14.6. Straightforward cause-effect evaluation (e.g land management).

Strategic Context

15. The Council has confirmed its proposed strategic directions with soon to be released Strategic Plan. Land and Water Quality are focus areas under the strategic goals of Resilient Ecosystems.

16. The Strategic Plan’s proposed outcome is a proactive integrated management of Land and Water through ‘Better understand(ing) trends and risks for each catchment’. ‘Keeping communities well informed’ is one of the proposed approaches in the focus area of people and communities.

17. Proposed Science Programme Objectives to support these strategic goals include:

17.1 To support sound strategic decisions in identifying areas for enhancement and improvement of water quality.

17.2 To provide catchment based robust information to support management and policy decisions, promoting integrated management.

17.3 To identify potential for efficient land management actions and report on effects of land use changes.

17.4 To identify potential WQ changes due to climate change and to assess likely effects of climate change on aquatic ecosystems.

17.5 To provide support to effectively deliver on Council’s statutory responsibilities, projects and services as approved by Council through its Long Term Plan (LTP).

17.6 To implement routine reporting on “Water Quality - State and Trends” in the Hawke’s Bay region.

17.7 To introduce targeted reporting on plan effectiveness to communities and focus groups with sound data to enhance community support.

17.8 To inform and guide the setting of priorities in relation to the activity of a local authority and other organisations.

17.9 To increase and improve stakeholder engagement through better reporting and defined outcomes.

Decision Making Process

18. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendations

1. That the Environmental Management Committee receives the report.

2. Agrees to support an increase of sampling frequency of the current SoE sites for the ongoing management and investment into the Hawke’s Bay region’s water quality and that financial implications be brought to the 2012-2022 LTP process for consideration.

Nina von Westernhagen

Environmental Scientist Freshwater Quality and Ecology

Adam Uytendaal

Principal Scientist, Water Quality & Ecology

Graham Sevicke-Jones

acting group manager

resource management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Statutory Advocacy Update

Attachment 1

Statutory Advocacy Update

Received	TLA	Map Ref	Activity	Applicant/ Agency	Status	Current Situation
12 Aug 2011	NCC	5	DRAFT Plan Change 7 - Jervoistown Zone Draft proposal for rezoning an area to be known as the ‘Jervoistown Zone’ within Napier City. Area to be rezoned is currently zoned as ‘Rural Settlement’ and ‘Main Rural’ in Napier District Plan. Draft Change also proposes various new rules and policies that would be applicable within the new Jervoistown Zone (including prohibiting subdivision of lots less than 2,500m2).	NCC	DRAFT Plan Change released by NapierCC	19 September 2011 · Council provided comments on Draft Change 7. Comments noted: 1. Conditional support for draft Change; 2. Need for careful management of further development in Jervoistown and surrounds that could upset proper implementation of settlement pattern as adopted in 2010 Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy. 3. Council’s role as drainage asset manager of the Jervois Drain and present limited capacity of Jervois Drain to accommodate additional runoff from further development. 4. Any further limited development must still comply with regional rules for wastewater treatment and disposal. Incidents of cross-contamination of wastewater and stormwater within existing settlement was also noted. 5. Merit in investigating a wider range of options for provision of wastewater services – more than just the one option referred to in Draft Change documents. Offer made for HBRC and NCC to have further discussions on this wider options, particularly if more cost-effective than reticulated disposal via NCC wastewater system at Awatoto.
5 November 2010	NCC	4	Notice of Requirement – Te Awa Structure Plan Notice of requirement for designation to allow for the construction of public works in the Te Awa Structure Plan area by Napier City Council.	NCC	Notified by NCC	1 October 2011 · No further progress to report. 6 December 2010 · The Council’s Engineering Team has provided comment. The Engineering Team believes that the proposed second pump station is unnecessary due to sufficient infrastructure already available in that there is scope to utilise infrastructure previously built for the Cross Country drain. · Council submitted in general support but provide further comments as stated below.
5 November 2010	NCC	4	Plan Change 6 – Te Awa Structure Plan The purpose of the plan change is to rezone the area from Main Rural to Main Residential and incorporate the outcomes sought in the Te Awa Structure Plan into the District Plan.	NCC	Notified by NCC	1 October 2011 · No further progress to report. 20 June 2011 · Council has received a Summary of Submissions from NCC. No action is required at this time. 6 December 2010 · The Engineering Team has provided comments. The proposed stormwater solution does not consider the principles of Low Impact Urban Design. · Council will submit in support of the application in principle but suggest some design principles that NCC could take into account when further developing the proposal. In particular the Council has recommended: 1. That decision making criteria and/or guidance be added that supports and encourages the principles of Low Impact Urban Design, and 2. That NCC develop a landscape plan that includes aspects to enhance the ecology, culture, recreation. Health and safety along Willowbank Avenue and the Serpentine Drain drainage corridor.
9 September 2010	NCC	3	Resource Consent - Subdivision The applicant seeks to undertake a 2 Lot subdivision to create one (1) 0.178 hectare residential Lot (being proposed Lot 1) and a balance Lot which will be 3.31 hectares (being proposed Lot 2). The address for the subdivision is 45 Rogers Road, Bay View, legal description Lot 4 DP 7344.	Cindy McKinnie Consultant – Consult Plus	Notified Restricted Discretionary	3 October 2011 · Appellant withdraws appeal. No further action/input required. 24 May 2011 · Environment Court-assisted mediation held amongst parties. Appellant to do further homework and reconvene mediation in late 2011. 21 February 2011 · Council joined appeal proceedings as interested party. 31 January 2011 · Received notice of an appeal by applicant against NCC decision seeking that the NCC decision to decline the application be overturned. 7 December 2010 · Application Hearing held on 24th November, Application declined by NCC. 8 October 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. Consent should be declined unless the proposed 2 residential lots are fully serviced or sufficient information is provided to show that adverse effects of on-site wastewater discharges (particularly in combination with the proposed soak-pit means of stormwater disposal), will be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated. · Submission stated installation of a reticulated sewage system for the Bay View community to be a sustainable long-term solution for the treatment and disposal of wastewater. · Submission also seeks clarification of floor level for flooding risk also requested.
23 August 2010	NCC	2	Resource Consent – Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide 58 McElwee Street, Jervoistown Certificate of Tile HBM2/1351 into two separate lots.	Mr B. Joseph Consultant – Consult Plus	Notified Restricted Discretionary	1 October 2011 · No further progress to report. 24 May 2011 · Mediation with the applicant and NCC to be held. · Council staff will maintain the position that: o No further discharge of stormwater will be accepted into the Jervois Drain, and o The option of discharging stormwater via the Claudatos scheme is only viable if a number of conditions are met. o Appellant to do further ‘homework’ and hold discussions with NapierCC. 27 January 2011 · Council joined appeal as an interested party, particularly interested in issues relating to the effects of increased site coverage and stormwater collection, treatment and disposal. 17 November 2010 · Application was declined at NCC Hearing held 17 November 2010. NCC decision subsequently appealed by applicant. 20 September 2010 · HBRC lodged submission opposing application. · Reasons include: o No provision for stormwater disposal and will likely result in adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding at a local level and the wider Jervoistown community. o Proposal to increase maximum site coverage from 10% to 25%. Concern that this will also increase adverse conditions in terms of flood levels and duration of flooding. · A 2009 report prepared by this Council (Jervoistown Drainage Analysis, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, April 2009) outlines the drainage issues and provides the conclusion that incremental development at Jervoistown will continue to result in reduced drainage standard for the existing houses. A copy of this report was provided to Napier CC shortly after its publication.
24 May 2010	NCC	1	Resource Consent - Subdivision The application seeks to subdivide an area of land currently zoned as main rural on 66 Franklin Road, Bay View into 6 lots and undertake earthworks.	Gerald Howe Consultant – Alan Petersen	Notified Restricted Discretionary	1 October 2011 · No further progress to report. 26 July 2011 · NCC Planning staff have informed HBRC that they are waiting on further information from the applicant. 2 August 2010 · Policy staff have met with the applicant’s consultant. Options and scenarios for wastewater consenting and servicing are under consideration. 14 July 2010 · Council submitted in opposition to the application seeking that the application be declined unless all of the 6 Lots were fully serviced. 12 June 2010 · Comment has been sought from the Regulation and Engineering teams. The stormwater solutions for the site are acceptable due to the free draining nature of the soils. The same soil types present an issue with on-site wastewater disposal and insufficient treatment. Coupled with the proximity of the subdivision to the coastal marine environmental it is likely that the Council will submit against the application. Submissions close 24 June 2010.

[1] WCO recognises outstanding value of mid-Mohaka for water-based recreation

[2] NOTE: Hastings District Council have nearly completed Stage 1 of their Medium Density Development Strategy (which addresses Action 9 section 5.16 of HPUDS) “to undertake further work on the intensification targets in order to ‘ground truth’ capacity of existing urban areas to accommodate the levels envisaged. This may involve some refinement of the settlement pattern and needs to occur before specific lines on a map are included in the Regional Policy Statement.”

[3] HPUDS TAG comprises Helen Codlin (Regional Council), Alastair Thompson (Napier City Council), Mark Clews (Hastings District Council) and their respective policy team leaders/managers.

Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
8	Draft Growth and Infrastructure RPS Change	HC	Oct	An update on this plan change is on the agenda, proposing adoption of plan change for notification at an EMC meeting to follow the AMB meeting in November
8	Draft Wastewater Plan Change This item was left to lie on the table. Councillors wanted more detailed information about what the options and the costs of those options might be before giving any indication of the direction they want staff to pursue.	HC		No further work has taken place with respect to the draft change for strategic management of onsite wastewater. Will review policy team workloads following notification of RPS Growth and Infrastructure plan change and receipt of submissions. Report of April EMC
13	Dairy Inspections – National Audit Media release to be prepared to report Council’s 100% audit compliance	DL/GSJ/BL	Immed	Completed and released on 15 August 2011

1 View	Statutory Advocacy Update
2 View	20111012 Statutory Advocacy Map

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.