Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SUBJECT: National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management – Progressive Implementation Report 2013-14

Reason for Report

1. This paper presents a report on the Council’s progressive implementation of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (‘NPSFM’) covering the 2013-14 financial year period.

NPSFM Annual Reporting

2. In September 2012, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council adopted an Implementation Programme in accordance with Policy E1 of the NPSFM. A Gantt chart from that adopted 2012 programme is set out in Figure 1. The Programme outlines key activities that the Council will undertake to implement the NPSFM by 2030. Policy E1^{^[1]} of the NPSFM requires that Council annually report on the extent to which the Programme has been implemented. The Programme signals that this annual reporting will be published as part of the Council’s ‘Annual Report’ to be prepared in accordance with the Local Government Act.

3. Annual reporting on the Programme is required until the programme is completed (i.e. until the NPSFM is fully implemented as relevant in Hawke's Bay’s regional policy statement and regional plans).

4. Exactly how the Programme looked and what it contained was up to the Council’s own discretion. Similarly, how annual reporting of implementation looks and what it contains is also up to the Council’s own discretion.

5. Staff recommend that the Council’s 2013-14 Annual Report include the content of Attachment 1 in two forms:

5.1. firstly, a brief bulleted list of key milestones and achievements as part of the Council’s 2013-14 Annual Report ‘performance overview’; and

5.2. secondly, a fuller commentary of activities to implement the NPSFM as an appendix to the Council’s 2013-14 Annual Report.

6. The fuller commentary in Attachment 1 is akin to a ‘stocktake’ of progress and status as set against the Programme’s indicative timelines.

Programme Revisions

7. The NPSFM does not specifically require the Programme to be updated, but staff think it would be beneficial to update the Programme from time to time to incorporate and changes or revisions. Revisions to the Programme should correspond to financial and resourcing requirements determined through the Council’s annual plan and/or long term plan review processes. There may also be other factors that influence the timing and completion of implementation activities which warrant revisions to the Programme over time.

8. The amended 2014 NPSFM which came into effect on 1 August specifically provides for councils amending their respective Programmes to accommodate revisions to the NPSFM, in particular the introduction of the National Objectives Framework (‘NOF’).

9. Councils are required to have adopted revised progressive implementation programmes before 31 December 2015. The upcoming 2015-25 Long Term Planning process will be crucial to properly informing any revisions to HBRC’s Programme.

10. In the current 2014-15 Annual Plan, the Council has already adopted revised timeframes for several statutory plan change processes under the RMA including those for:

10.1. public notification of a plan change for the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri area (and with it, the plan change for urban stormwater);

10.2. public notification of a plan change for the Mohaka River catchment;

10.3. developing policy to address issues raised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her June 2014 report on oil and gas exploration; and

10.4. completion of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy, which influences timing of any changes to the RPS and/or regional plans.

11. The Programme assumed Plan Change 6 (Tukituki River Catchment) would be called in via the Environmental Protection Authority. That is now indeed the case so the Programme’s indicative timeframes still hold.

Decision Making Process

12. 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:

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

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

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

12.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

12.5. Options that have been considered include preparing an annual report on implementation of the NPSFM, revising the original 2012 implementation programme and not revising the original 2012 programme.

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

12.7. 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

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives the “National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management – Progressive Implementation Report 2013-14” report.

2. Recommends that Council:

2.1 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.

2.2 Agrees that the content of the report’s attachment be re-formatted and published as part of the Council’s 2013-14 Annual Report.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Draft Annual Report NPSFM Implementation Reporting 2013-14

Draft Annual Report NPSFM Implementation Reporting 2013-14

Attachment 1

Appendix A - Key milestones and activities for NPSFM Implementation progress

Key Implementation milestones and activities for the 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Status key (for 2013-2014 period)	NPSFM Objectives
Completed within Programme’s indicative timeframe	A1 – safeguarding life-supporting capacity etc. (water quality)	B3 – efficient allocation and use (water quantity)
In progress during Programme’s indicative timeframe	A2 – overall water quality in region	B4 – significant values of wetlands (water quantity)
Not started during Programme’s indicative timeframe	B1 – safeguarding life-supporting capacity etc. (water quantity)	C1 – integrated management of land and fresh water
Implementation activity/phase ongoing	B2 – over-allocation (water quantity)	D1 – tangata whenua roles and interests
Implementation not programmed in current reporting period

Activity	2012- 2013 Status	2013- 2014 Status	Comment on 2013 – 2014 progress	Principal 2011 NPSFM Objective(s) relevant to Activity (indicative only)
Activity	2012- 2013 Status	2013- 2014 Status	Comment on 2013 – 2014 progress	Obj A1		Obj A2	Obj B1	Obj B2	Obj B3	Obj B4	Obj C1	Obj D1
Change 4 (Built Environment) to Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan – appeals on decisions phase			Council released its decisions on 26 March 2013. Transpower NZ Ltd had lodged an appeal with the Environment Court against some of the Council’s decisions on Change 4. That appeal was resolved by negotiation and Change 4 became operative on 1 January 2014.								l
Change 5 (Land use and Freshwater) to Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan - appeals on decisions phase			Council released its decisions on submissions on 5 June 2013. Four appeals were lodged with the Environment Court against some of the Council’s decisions on Change 5. Three Environment Court-assisted mediation sessions were held during the 2013-14 period. By end of the reporting period, parties had reached in-principle agreement to settle the majority of appeal points. One matter is likely to require an Environment Court hearing fixture in 2014-15 period. Another matter requires external expertise to assess the extent of six ephemeral wetlands in the region before parties can agree that matter is settled.	l		l	l	l	l	l	l	l
Plan Change 6 (Tukituki Catchment) - Submissions, hearing and decisions phase			Plan Change 6 (Tukituki Catchment) was publicly notified on 4th May 2013. Change 6 was called-in by the Environment and Conservation Ministers (via the Environmental Protection Authority) so it is part of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal (in conjunction with applications for the Ruataniwha Water Storage project). Board of Inquiry’s hearings held over 18 November 2013 to 21 January 2014. The Board issued its draft decision on 15 April 2014 and subsequently issued its final decisions on 26 June.	l		l	l	l	l	l	l	l
- High Court appeals phase			Two appeals against the Board’s decisions were lodged in the High Court on points of law. Resolution of those appeals will be during the 2014-15 period.
Plan Change: Mohaka River catchment - Stakeholder engagement and policy drafting			An update report was presented to the Regional Planning Committee in February 2014. That update included reporting on a management framework for the Taharua sub-catchment, a stakeholder engagement proposal and water quality monitoring trends. For wider Mohaka catchment, supporting science continued to be progressed, stakeholder engagement has occurred in targeted interviews, focus groups during the reporting period. Mohaka Consultation Group is yet to be formed as a sounding board for issues, options, choices and plan drafting prior to notification of a plan change. A consultant was engaged to prepare an initial assessment of recreational use and values within the Mohaka River catchment. Extension to the time frame for plan change notification was included in the 2013-14 Annual Plan (i.e. notification Dec 2014).	l		l	l				l	l
Plan Change: Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri - Stakeholder engagement and policy drafting			An update report was presented to the Regional Planning Committee in September 2013. A collaborative stakeholder group (the ‘TANK Group’) has been discussing management options for groundwater and surface water resources in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area (which includes the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments, the Heretaunga aquifers and the receiving marine environments). The TANK Group has prepared a report outlining the Group’s 45 interim agreements. That report was presented to the Regional Planning Committee in February 2014 where the RPC endorsed the TANK Group’s work and agreed to have particular regard to any consensus outcome from the group should one emerge. Previously (August 2012), the Council gave a good faith commitment to support any consensus recommendations (that are consistent with other planning documents) from the TANK Group. Extension to the time frame for regional plan change notification was included in the 2013-14 Annual Plan (i.e. notification Dec 2016).	l		l	l	l	l	l	l	l
Plan Change: urban stormwater			This Plan Change aligns with Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri plan change and the policy development will stem from the collaborative process being undertaken by the ‘TANK’ Group. Council adopted its progressive implementation programme for NPS for Freshwater Management in September 2012. That programme indicates stormwater plan change notification in parallel to the regional plan change for Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Catchment Area (i.e. notification Dec 2016).	l		l					l	l
RPS and/or plan change: 2010 Coastal Policy Statement implementation			No specific investigations dedicated to solely the coastal environment were necessary during the period. Gap analysis of RCEP against 2010 NZCPS was commenced using a consultant and will be completed in early 2014-15 period. Meanwhile, staff resources were redirected to other projects. Nonetheless, a number of indirectly related investigations have been commissioned in relation to catchment-based regional plan changes (eg: Tukituki and Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri areas) where the coast is ultimately those catchment areas’ receiving environments. Minister of Conservation issued his approval (on 19 June 2014) of the RCEP’s coastal marine area-related provisions over 18 months after the provisions were forwarded to his office.	l		l					l	l
Biodiversity Strategy			Project scoping commenced and completed. Terms of Reference for Working Group have been developed. Working Group’s first meeting held in October 2012 focussing on gaining an understanding of what the individuals in the group were doing in the biodiversity area and how best to work as a group in the future. Steering group have met and begun developing the strategy objectives. Steering group members have been reviewed and Mana Whenua connections made to contribute to the development. Refinement of Biodiversity Accord complete with accord concepts to be further refined through the steering group. Inventory work is completed and informed further field investigations undertaken in the 2013-14 summer period. Due to staff focus on priority projects, the timeline has been revised and the Strategy is now scheduled to be completed in early 2015. A programme for work relevant to HBRC for inclusion in the next Long Term Plan will be prepared in 2014-2015.
RPS Change for Biodiversity (significant wetlands)			Policy development is subject to completion of the Regional Biodiversity Strategy.		l	l	l			l	l	l
Identification of outstanding freshwater bodies			Preliminary desktop review and scoping of information regarding possible evaluation criteria was undertaken during preparation of RRMP Change 5 (2012-13 period). Further criteria development and waterbody assessment by HBRC was parked pending in particular, development of national guidance on this issue by Ministry for the Environment, and the resolution of Change 5 appeals. In June, Council lodged an application to MfE’s Community Environment Fund to provide resourcing for a proposal to develop criteria, a methodology and run ‘pilot’ project in Hawke's Bay for identification of outstanding freshwater bodies. As at 1 August 2014, the Minister for the Environment was yet to announce if that funding application was successful.
RPS Change for outstanding freshwater bodies			Policy development is subject to completion of the identification of outstanding freshwater bodies.		l	l	l				l	l
Plan change: rest of region			No specific policy development activity during the 2013-14 period.		l	l	l	l	l	l	l	l
Specific plan effectiveness monitoring programmes (Tukituki; Taharua/Mohaka; Heretaunga/Ahuriri)			Specific plan effectiveness monitoring and reporting not yet developed. Development of implementation plan (and associated plan effectiveness monitoring programme) to be a focus during the 2014-15 period.
RPS/ Plan Effectiveness Reporting/Review			No specific plan effectiveness monitoring and reporting scheduled during the 2013-14 period.
SOE Reporting and Review (5 yearly, annual)			Council undertakes monthly and annual reporting on specific investigations carried out in that reporting period. Every five years Council undertakes State of the Environment Reporting to assess longer term trends. Council is currently compiling the five-yearly state of the environment report due for publication in late 2014.
Regional Afforestation Scheme			Council proposed to work in partnership with landowners with highly erodible land to promote afforestation of the steepest and least productive portion of their land in return for a share of carbon credit revenue. The afforestation of steep, highly erodible hill country would likely improve water quality in rivers due to reduced sediment from erosion. This project commonly known as ‘Trees on Farms’ has been put on hold indefinitely as the current down turn in carbon prices has significantly reduced the economic viability of the project as a working model. In 2013, Council instructed staff to explore other options and seek other economic drivers for investment.
Water Storage Investigations – Ruataniwha & Ngaruroro/Heretaunga Plains			A pre-feasibility study was completed for the Ngaruroro/Heretaunga Plains catchment in 2011. An on farm economic assessment to determine the viability of water storage for the Ngaruroro catchment needs to be conducted. This will help to establish if the project should proceed to a feasibility investigation. This economic assessment was due for completion in 2012 however it has been deferred due to resource constraints. It is anticipated that recommendations will be made to Council in 2015. This is being considered as part of the Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri policy development work. Consent applications for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) were lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority on May 2013 and were subsequently called in by the Environment and Conservation Ministers as part of the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ (alongside Plan Change 6) . The RWSS applications were notified by the EPA on 6 July 2013. The Board issued its draft decisions on 15 April 2014 and subsequently issued its final decision on 26 June.
Science investigations to support plan changes including nutrient modelling; groundwater modelling; instream flow assessments; water quality monitoring; flow gauging; surface water/ groundwater interactions for Heretaunga Plains			Targeted water quality investigations are on-going and feed into the Tukituki, TANK and Mohaka Plan Changes. This is over and above Council’s statutory obligations for monitoring surface water quality throughout the region. The objectives of the work is to better define current state; define and understand ecological and physical-chemical conditions and dynamics; and allow for effective limit setting in relation to water quality limits.
Implementation of Water Measuring Regulations			The first phase of the transitional Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 came into force on 10 November 2012. This affected approximately 950 consents of which 450 new water meter installations were required, for consented rates of at 20 litres/second or more. Council reached effective 100% compliance with the Regulations by September 2013. The second phase of the transitional Regulations comes into force from 10 November 2014 for water takes of 10 litres/second or more, but less than 20 litres/second. Council is currently progressing with the verification of phase two and anticipates full compliance will be achieved by the November 2014 timeframe.
Facilitation of water user groups			Council is continuing to work with water users to establish efficient water use through alternative water management options. This is on a ‘where and when’ basis due to resourcing limitations (funding and staffing levels). Council has facilitated the establishment of key water user groups such as the Ngaruroro Irrigation Society and the Twyford Irrigators Group. Both of these water user groups are part of the TANK collaborative stakeholder group.
Facilitation of catchment groups for non-point source discharges			Council is working on an adaptive management framework to manage non-point source discharges from land into water. A pilot is being developed for the Tukituki Catchment that will comprise an overall facilitation group informed by the primary industry pan sector which then supports six sub-catchment operational groups which comprises landowners, Hapu and HBRC. The objectives of the pilot are to build the capacity within the sub-catchment groups to enable them to self manage to reduce/mitigate contaminant discharges with a focus on nutrients. The pilot is being in run in the Papanui catchment. In the past year there has been significant science investment which has run in parallel to the development of a Catchment Management Plan and in tandem with significant community engagement. A mauri monitoring pilot is also under development for the catchment.
Management and mitigation plans			Council is working towards an adaptive management framework with key stakeholders to achieve limits and targets in Tukituki Plan Change 6. Phosphorus management plans within priority sub-catchments are proposed to address phosphorus loads using specific mitigation methods suited to the situation. Methods could include afforestation of hill country to address sediment migration into waterways. The Phosphorous Management Framework is in the final development stages in conjunction with AgResearch.

Draft Regional Planning Report

Attachment 1

RPC Annual Activity Report

July 2013 - June 2014

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is committed to working in partnership with tāngata whenua and has welcomed the traditional knowledge and approach to resource management that Māori bring to the table.

The Regional Council’s vision is for a region with a vibrant community, a prosperous economy, a clean and healthy environment, now and for future generations. Management of natural and physical resources is one of the Regional Council’s key responsibilities. Māori are kaitiaki or guardians of the region’s natural resources and as tāngata whenua, have a key role in the way these resources are managed both now and in the future.

Cultural redress through Treaty of Waitangi settlements has initiated new partnerships between Hawke’s Bay tāngata whenua and the Regional Council. These partnerships focus on the management of natural and physical resources and the exploration of sustainable economic opportunities for the entire region.

The Regional Planning Committee was established on 27^th April 2011 to actively achieve co-governance of the region’s resources by the Regional Council and Treaty claimant representatives. This form of Treaty settlement redress is consistent with the Government’s overarching position on natural resource management in the settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.

Establishment of the Committee

The Regional Planning Committee was established to oversee the review and development of the Regional Policy Statement and regional plans prepared under the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Committee is made up of nine elected Councillors and nine tāngata whenua members including two members from Post Settlement Treaty Entities. Ultimately, the Committee is proposed to be fixed into legislation when passing the Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee Bill currently before Parliament. The Committee is one of the first established joint planning committees in New Zealand. Since its formation, the Committee has worked together without a formal statutory mandate, but nevertheless, operates under the principles of co-governance to ensure that the region’s tāngata whenua are active decision makers in managing their taonga under the RMA.

Committee Members

Membership of the Regional Planning Committee consists of an equal number of tāngata whenua and Regional Councillors.

Alan Dick	Regional Councillor
Christine Scott	Regional Councillor
Colin Rangi	Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum
Dave Pipe (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Debbie Hewitt (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Fenton Wilson (Co-Chair)	Regional Councillor (Chairman)
Karauna Brown	Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Incorporated
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Nigel Baker	Ngāti Tūwharetoa Hapū Forum
Peter Beaven (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Rex Graham (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Rick Barker (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitū Incorporated
Tom Belford (Nov 2013-present)	Regional Councillor
Toro Waaka (Co-Chair)	Ngāti Pāhauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Walter Wilson	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa

Why we are different

The Regional Planning Committee differs from the Regional Council’s other committees. The Committee is chaired under a dual chairmanship arrangement with the Chairman of the Regional Council and a nominated tāngata whenua representative (currently Mr Toro Waaka). Decisions are made with at least 80% consensus, rather than the usual 50+% majority or Chair’s casting vote. The Regional Council permanently established this Committee so it is not dissolved every three years like other committees, when local body elections take place. Members of the Committee, particularly tāngata whenua, can therefore undertake long term planning spanning multiple years. Tāngata whenua membership has not changed this year, however as a result of the three-yearly local body elections in October 2013, there are now six newly elected Councillors on the Committee.

The year in focus

The Committee met formally four times between July 2013 and June 2014 to consider issues and make recommendations to the Regional Council. A number of the projects and items that the Committee has considered in the past year are ongoing projects. These are outlined below:

Taharua/ Mohaka Catchment Policy Development and Stakeholder Engagement

· August 2013, Science progress update covering key water quality and ecology indicators.

· Catchment plan change update, presented February 2014:

§ Covered policy, land management, science investigations and stakeholder engagement

§ Agreed Treaty claimant groups represented on the Regional Planning Committee would also take part in wider catchment stakeholder discussions.

Appeals on ‘Change 5’ to the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan

· August 2013, four appeals lodged with the Environment Court against the Regional Council’s decisions on Change 5 (‘land and freshwater management’).

· Limited opportunities for tāngata whenua to be represented on the Environment Court’s Panel as Council has little influence on the makeup of the Environment Court’s own judge and commissioners who might be appointed to hear the cases.

· Prompt resolution of Change 5 appeals is critical to the Regional Council’s strategic direction so the Committee gave authority to the Group Manager Strategic Development to sign mediated appeal agreements on the Regional Council’s behalf.

Draft annual report for national policy statement (NPS) for freshwater management implementation programmes

· August 2013, considered draft annual report on the Regional Council’s implementation of the NPS for Freshwater Management.

· Based on the Committee’s recommendations to Council, the NPSFM progressive implementation report was subsequently published in September 2013 as part of the Regional Council’s 2012/13 Annual Report.

Resource Management Reform

· August 2013, concerns raised regarding the relatively short timeframe for lodging submissions on the Reform proposals. A letter conveying this concern and comments on the proposed Reform package was subsequently sent to the Minister for the Environment^{^[4]}.

Greater Heretaunga/ Ahuriri Catchment Plan Change covering the Tūtaekurī, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamū (TANK) catchments

· February 2014, received update on the TANK collaborative stakeholder group.

· Considered important that the TANK Group maintains a close relationship with the Ahuriri Estuary Management Committee, given the direction of Treaty settlement negotiations with Mana Ahuriri.

· Acknowledged that while Council retains final decision-making responsibility under the RMA, the Regional Planning Committee will have particular regard to any TANK consensus outcome, if one emerges, as long as it is consistent with higher level policy and planning documents including the Resource Management Act, Council’s Land and Water Management Strategy, Regional Policy Statement and Long Term Plan.

Local Government Reorganisation

· February 2014, considered a submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for Hawke’s Bay Local Government Reorganisation.

· Maungaharuru-Tangitū Hapū tabled a response to a letter addressed to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson. The letter expressed concern about the durability of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee in light of the draft Hawke’s Bay reorganisation proposal released by the Local Government Commission in December 2013. In particular, the Committee noted:

a) Its own Terms of Reference already outline the Committee’s makeup and permanency;

b) Its primary functions could not be taken away other than by a statute but under a new proposal could be added to;

c) Lack of clarity about where the Regional Planning Committee would fit in a joint unitary proposal and the management of planning provisions for natural and physical resources;

d) Importance of meeting requirements for the district and future regional policy development particularly in regard to tāngata whenua; and

e) Need for clarification of the respective roles of the Māori Committee (which acts in an advisory role to the Council) and the Regional Planning Committee.

Tukituki Catchment Proposal - Board of Inquiry’s Draft Decision

· May 2014, received a report on the Board of Inquiry’s draft decision on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal.

· Discussed key implications for the community and for the Regional Council’s implementation of ‘Plan Change 6’ for the Tukituki River catchment based on the Board’s Draft Decision.

· Noted that further evaluation of the Board’s final decision was required to develop a work programme to implement the Board’s final decision.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group

· May 2014, received a report from Dr Andrew Tait of NIWA on projected climate changes, implications for key sectors, adaptation and risk management and the key risks for New Zealand and Australia.

· Key points noted included:

a) Nationally there was a possible increase in temperature of up to 5 degrees Celsius,

b) A decrease in mean annual rainfall - droughts may become more prevalent in the future;

c) Rainfall events may become more intense, with associated increased flooding risks;

d) Ecosystems could be affected by the introduction of introduced pests and diseases and health impacts from increased water/ food borne diseases with a shift in summer/ winter health issues; and

e) Climate change adaptation processes need to be continually considered in light that many adaption limits have a long lead-in time.

Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated’s possible membership of RPC

· February 2014, Mr Waaka advised that since the Treaty claimant groups had been in place, ongoing meetings had occurred with Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) regarding Committee representation.

· A further series of meetings between NKII and Treaty claimant group representatives would occur over the next year to clarify, and ideally agree on, tāngata whenua representation on natural resource management issues.

Commissioner Training for RPC Tāngata Whenua

· Noted the importance of all members of the Regional Planning Committee attending the RMA hearing commissioner accreditation ‘Foundation Course’ as the RMA requires accreditation of hearings panel members for resource consent hearings and plan/ policy hearings. This is considered particularly useful for the Committee’s tāngata whenua members as they would bring their traditional knowledge and approach to resource management to the table.

· Regional Council and Hastings District Council hosted two successful foundation course 2-day workshops in December 2013. Four members of the Committee (and five Regional Council staff) are now accredited RMA Hearings Commissioners.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SUBJECT: New Zealand Coastal policy Statement: Regional Coastal Environment Plan Gaps Assessment

Reason for Report

1. This report presents an assessment of areas for improvement in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) to give effect to the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (the NZCPS). The report seeks feedback from the Committee about matters arising from the assessment to feed into development of the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Discussion

2. In May, Mr Rob van Voorthuysen was engaged as a consultant to undertaken a gap assessment of the RCEP against the 2010 NZCPS. Copies of the resulting Gap Assessment Report have been circulated separately to Committee members.^{^[5]}

3. By way of brief background, one of the Council’s Strategic Planning activities in 2013/14 Annual Plan was to scope and prioritise plan changes required to give effect to the 2010 NZCPS. For over 12 months, this scoping and prioritisation has been delayed while the Minister of Conservation considered whether or not to approve those parts of the RCEP that related to the region’s coastal marine area.

4. The Minister of Conservation must prepare and have in place a national policy statement for the coastal environment. The first version of this came into effect in 1994. The RCEP was prepared to give effect to the 1994 NZCPS, amongst other things. In 2006, the Minister commenced a review of the 1994 NZCPS which ultimately led to the 2010 NZCPS coming into effect on 3 December 2010. By this time, the Council had:

4.1. drafted and publicly notified the RCEP (August 2006)

4.2. issued decisions on submissions (July 2008)

4.3. had negotiations with appellants and resolved a number of appeals in their entirety (September 2008-2010).

5. For the most part, the RCEP was well advanced beyond a point where appeal negotiations could reasonably give effect to the 2010 NZCPS instead of the earlier 1994 version.

6. The Resource Management Act (‘RMA’) requires the regional policy statement^{^[6]} and regional plans^{^[7]} to give effect to the NZCPS (and other national policy statements) as soon as practicable using the usual Schedule 1 RMA process (i.e. preparation, consultation, formal submissions and further submissions, hearings, decisions and appeals (if any)).

7. Following resolution of the last few points of appeals, in December 2012 the Council adopted the RCEP and forwarded the coastal marine area-related provisions to the Minister of Conservation for approval. Committee members will be well aware that that Ministerial approval phase took an inordinate length of time. The Minister eventually gave his approval on 19 June 2014.

RCEP Gap Assessment

8. The consultant’s Gap Assessment was not a full review of the RCEP. Key issues arising from the report can be summarised as:

8.1. The RCEP only gives partial effect to the 2010 NZCPS.

8.2. A range of new and amended policy provisions are required to give full effect to the NZCPS.

8.3. Extensive further identification and mapping of specific management areas is required (including areas of outstanding natural character, outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes, and indigenous biological diversity areas) within the coastal environment. New or amended policy is also required in relation to those areas.

8.4. An opportunity exists to make the RCEP more user friendly and helpful to decision-makers. This includes removing current content that plans are no longer required to contain.

9. In section 36 of the Gap Analysis report, the consultant has suggested work programme priorities arising from his review. Those are:

9.1. Undertake the mapping exercises described in sections 4.2 and 5 of [the] Report commencing with a re-evaluation of the coastal environment boundary. Seek to learn from other regional councils (including Bay of Plenty and Northland) who have recently undertaken similar mapping exercises;

9.2. Once that mapping is done, identify where prohibited activity rules are required to give effect to the NZCPS policies discussed in the body of [the] Report;

9.3. Develop other rules (other than prohibited activity rules) that relate to the areas required to be mapped as described in section 5 of [the] Report;

9.4. Identify policies which need to be deleted or amended because they are contrary to the advice given in section 4.9 of [the] Report;

9.5. Draft provisions to implement the suggestions set out in sections 4 to 31 of [the] Report;

9.6. Consolidate the rules to remove the legacy effect of the former [1994 NZCPS’s restricted coastal activity] requirements.

10. These suggestions from the consultant do not commit the Council to any or all of the suggested actions. Further consideration of these suggestions is required before a fuller project plan (with details on the what, who, how and when) is developed.

Financial and Resource Implications

11. There are no direct financial and resource implications arising from the Committee considering the consultant’s Gaps Analysis Report at this time. There will be financial and resource implications arising from the scale of work, the timing of work and degree of ‘effort’ ultimately decided to give effect to the NZCPS. Those financial and resource implications are currently being assessed by staff and will inform the Council’s overall resourcing requirements for the 2015-25 Long Term Planning process.

12. The broader financial and resourcing implications of this project and other resource management-related projects are the subject of a separate staff report to the Committee’s 20 August 2014 meeting.

Decision Making Process

13. 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:

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

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

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

13.4. The persons affected by this decision are those people with an interest in the sustainable management of the Hawke's Bay coastal environment’s natural and physical resources under the RMA.

13.5. Options that have been considered include establishing the scope and relative priorities of any plan changes to the Regional Coastal Environment Plan with or without reference to the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan development process.

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

13.7. 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 Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives the staff report and provides any feedback on matters arising from the consultant’s Gap Assessment report.

2. Considers the Gap Assessment report as part of its consideration of the Resource Management Planning Programme for the Long Term Plan process.

3. Recommends that Council:

3.1. 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.

3.2. Receives the consultant’s report titled ‘Gap Analysis of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Regional Coastal Environmental Plan against the NZCPS 2010’ (dated August 2014 prepared by Mr Rob van Voorthuysen).

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

NB - Under separate cover supplied to Committee Members – “Gap Analysis of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Regional Coastal Environmental Plan against the NZCPS 2010”

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SUBJECT: 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Reason for Report

1. This report presents an overview of the recently released amended 2014 version^{^[8]} of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (the NPSFM). A copy of the 2014 NPSFM has been supplied to Committee members under separate cover.

Background

2. The 2014 NPSFM supports improved freshwater management in New Zealand. On 1August, amendments to the NPSFM came into effect. The NPSFM does not apply to geothermal or coastal water.

3. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council joined other members of the local government sector and contributed to the LGNZ submission on proposed amendments. Prior to this, staff were involved in several national workshops assisting central government officials understand implications of the changes to the 2011 version of the NPSFM to Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

NPSFM Amendments

4. The NPSFM 2011 required the overall quality of freshwater within a region to be maintained or improved. The amended NPSFM now provides more detail and direction for regional councils. The NPSFM requires regional councils to recognise the national significance of fresh water for all New Zealanders and Te Mana o te Wai (the mana of the water).

5. The NPSFM now also includes a specific statement at the outset of the document about the national significance of fresh water and Te Mana o te Wai. This recognises that there is a range of community and tāngata whenua values associated with fresh water.

6. The NPSFM directs regional councils to:

6.1. safeguard fresh water’s life supporting capacity, ecosystem processes, and indigenous species including their associated ecosystems

6.2. manage freshwater bodies so people’s health is safeguarded when wading or boating (a minimum requirement)

6.3. maintain or improve the overall quality of fresh water within a region

6.4. protect the significant values of wetlands and outstanding freshwater bodies

6.5. require more efficient use of fresh water by end users

6.6. avoid the over allocation of water takes and inputs of contaminants, and to phase out existing over allocation

6.7. implement the national objectives framework by:

6.7.1. setting freshwater objectives according to a specified process (ie, the national objectives framework) and to meet community and tāngata whenua values which include the compulsory values of ecosystem health and human health for recreation

6.7.2. using a specified set of water quality measures (attributes) to set the freshwater objectives (an objective can only be set below national bottom lines in specified circumstances)

6.8. set limits which allow freshwater objectives to be met (eg, a total catchment contaminant-load or a total rate of water take)

6.9. put in place measures to better account for water takes and sources of contaminants, and measure achievement towards meeting objectives

6.10. take a more integrated approach to managing fresh water and coastal water

6.11. fully implement the NPSFM by 2025 [was 2030 under 2011 NPSFM].

7. Council staff have previously presented an initial overview of the amendments to HBRC’s Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting on 16 July (refer Item #9). The NPSFM has been amended to include:

7.1. a specified process (the national objectives framework) for setting objectives, based on managing water bodies to meet community and tāngata whenua values, and providing a set of water quality measures (attributes) that must be used to meet the objectives

7.2. a requirement that all water bodies must be managed so they are suitable for ecosystem health and human health^{^[9]} for recreation. Ecosystem health and human health for recreation are compulsory national values and the NPSFM includes set minimum acceptable states for these values called national bottom lines

7.3. scientifically-informed attributes tables and national bottom lines for several key attributes of water quality. These are Nitrogen, Phosphorus and phytoplankton (trophic state) in lakes, periphyton (slime), nitrate and ammonia toxicity in rivers, E.coli in both lakes and rivers, planktonic cyanobacteria (toxic algae) in lakes and lake-fed rivers, and dissolved oxygen levels downstream of discharges

7.4. a requirement that councils put in place measures to better account for the water taken out of water bodies, and the key contaminants going in

7.5. clearer articulation of iwi values for fresh water

7.6. a requirement to monitor progress towards achieving freshwater objectives.

8. The Ministry for the Environment is producing guidance for regional councils on implementing the 2014 NPSFM. The first guidance to be produced will be on:

8.1. accounting for water takes and sources of contaminants

8.2. establishing freshwater management units.

National Objectives Framework (NOF)

9. The framework comprises four bands, A, B, C and D. The national bottom line for each attribute is the threshold between bands C and D. Bands A, B and C can be applied to different freshwater management units as determined through regional or catchment based planning processes.

10. Councils are required to maintain or improve water quality within their regions and cannot set an objective below a national bottom line. There are only two circumstances where an objective may be set below a national bottom line:

10.1. where the water quality is naturally below the bottom line, for example a native bird colony nesting in a river bed causing high E.coli levels downstream; or

10.2. where existing infrastructure (such as a hydro-electric power station) contributes to water quality being below the bottom line.

11. If a community is of the view that the process to manage a water body to a level above the bottom line would place an unmanageable burden on their community they can apply to the government for that area to be specified.

12. The list of NOF attributes will no doubt continue to develop over time. As a first priority, we understand more work is planned to determine how the Macro-Invertebrate Community Index (MCI) can be used as a performance measure for ecosystem health.

13. Currently, HBRC’s monitoring data from the region’s state of the environment monitoring programme is being collated and reviewed. This includes freshwater quality data. This data will be the basis of the Council’s 5-yearly report on SOE ‘trends’ due to be published late 2014. Due to some differences in sampling methodologies compared to the NOF attributes, Council will need to review the way it monitors, collects, and reports on water quality data in the future.

Staged implementation programme

14. The changes now require the NPSFM to be implemented by 2025 (was 2030), but does not specify timeframes by which councils and communities must adjust their activities to meet their freshwater objectives. Councils will be required to adopt a programme of staged implementation and publicly notify it by December 2015. This effectively amounts to a review of the Council’s original 2012 Programme discussed above.

15. HBRC’s staged implementation will need to be considered as part of the Resource Management Planning programme for the 2015-25 Long Term Plan process.

Implications

16. The following is an extract from a document prepared by MfE summarising impacts of the revised NPSFM.

17. One of the main benefits of the amendments is to settle much of the science required to support freshwater objectives for ecosystem health and human health. Specifying the contaminants or factors that must be managed to achieve national bottom lines, and the amount of each of them that corresponds to each of the A, B or C grading bands, reduces the scope of matters that can be challenged through the plan development process. This is more efficient than every council having to work through, and be challenged on, the science when they develop and review their regional plans.

18. Councils and communities are required to consider the costs involved when they make choices about how and over what timeframe they act to get the water quality they want. Where rivers and lakes are below a national bottom line, the council will need to put plans in place to improve the water quality. The methods and timeframes chosen to get water quality above a bottom line will affect the costs on the people using the water resource. These will be decisions for communities to make but it is important they have clear information informing these decisions.

19. Councils may also face costs to set up council systems to account for the water taken out and the contaminants getting into fresh water. The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry for Primary Industries will be providing guidance for councils to help with this and all new requirements in the NPSFM. In addition, the Government will provide $12 million in extra funding over the next four years to help councils and communities improve the way they plan and make decisions about managing their local freshwater resources.

20. While there will be costs to councils in building expertise, these will be balanced by lower costs in producing their regional plans, and by the benefit in having better freshwater management over the longer term.

21. Several of the changes have the potential to be significant for HBRC. These include:

21.1. The timing for complete implementation of the NPSFM has been reduced from 2030 to 2025, unless it is not practicable or will result in an inferior plan quality.

21.1.1. This new date is within the implementation programme previously approved by HBRC. If projects are substantially delayed for any reason, HBRC has the ability to apply for an extension to the 2025 timeframe.

21.1.2. A staged implementation programme must be formally adopted by 31 December 2015 and reported upon annually until fully completed.

22. Various wording alterations have been made since the proposed amendments to the NPSFM were released for public comment. These include:

22.1. a number of new definitions have been added to the Interpretation section to clarify the intent of policies and to aid workability. These include definitions for:

22.1.1. ‘existing freshwater quality’; and

22.1.2. ‘naturally occurring processes’.

22.2. amendments to other definitions to aid interpretation and the removal of a definition for Te Mana o te Wai as this now has its own section

22.3. a potential loophole has been closed such that it is now clear that all water bodies (rivers, lakes and groundwaters) within a region must be covered by the new system of freshwater management units

22.4. reinforcement that the identification (spatial extent) of freshwater management units are appropriately determined at the regional level (refer definition of Freshwater Management Unit in the interpretation section)

22.5. the objective (CC1) for Freshwater quantity and Freshwater quality data to be available for national water management and monitoring purposes has been dropped. This removes the potential inconsistency with the Environmental Reporting Bill and confirms the primacy of each regional monitoring design and sampling protocols

22.6. less prescription with the reporting of freshwater accounting information and leaves it to regional council discretion. This also removed the spectre of conflict with the Environmental Reporting Bill

22.7. enhanced links between freshwater bodies and coastal waters has been confirmed in Policy C2, as have the links between land use and water resources through the requirement to change regional policy statements (district and regional plans are in turn required to give effect to RPSs)

22.8. food security being replaced with irrigation and food production in the list of national values

22.9. two attribute tables appear to have been removed; one for Suitability for Recreation Grade (SFRG) and the other for Periphyton in rivers. This latter table was not appropriate for the majority of lowland rivers where natural turbidity prevented Periphyton growth and therefore could not be measured.

Implications for HBRC’s science work programme

23. The value of HBRC’s existing long-term time series data is recognised in the NPSFM. The 2014 amendments also confirm that regional councils are to determine:

23.1. the definition and form of Freshwater Management Units including spatial scale; and

23.2. selection of representative monitoring sites within each Freshwater Management Unit; and

23.3. reporting frequency of information gathered as part of the freshwater accounting process.

24. The monitoring frequency specified by the NOF attributes may require additional resourcing to increase intensity of data collection and/or the form (e.g. manual or remotely via technology) in which data is collected.

25. Deleting the requirement for monitoring data to be available for national purposes^{^[10]} removes the imperative for nationally standard sampling and analysis and focuses monitoring on the achievement of freshwater objectives for each Freshwater Management Unit.

26. A foreseeable consequence is that this will potentially lead to a duplication of freshwater sampling effort as water domain information will need to be collected separately for national reporting purposes under the proposed Environmental Reporting Bill. This is because it is foreseeable that such sampling will need to be standardised in all respects (sampling protocols, lab analysis, data storage and statistical analysis) to allow aggregation to the national level.

Summary

27. In summary, the NPSFM 2014 adds clarity and direction for HBRC as it works with iwi partners and the community to develop limits and targets and methods to achieve them. This is not too dissimilar from processes already underway in the Taharua and Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment areas.

28. While the changes have been developed to assist the nationally consistent implementation of the NPSFM, new attributes are expected to be added in the future. These are expected to include tables for Macro-invertebrate Community Indices (MCI) and groundwater quality. Most of the changes from the 2011 to the 2014 version of the NPSFM provide helpful clarification for HBRC.

29. Further evaluation of the 2014 NPSFM’s implications will emerge over time as practitioners and communities apply the new national directives to regional plan development processes. Some of those implications will need to be estimated sooner rather than later and subsequently factored into the HBRC’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Financial and Resource Implications

30. There are no direct financial and resource implications arising from the Committee considering this report at this time. There will be financial and resource implications arising from the scale of work, the timing of work and degree of ‘effort’ ultimately decided to give effect to the 2014 NPSFM. Those financial and resource implications are currently being assessed by staff and will inform the Council’s overall resourcing requirements for the 2015-25 Long Term Planning process.

31. The broader financial and resourcing implications of this project and other resource management-related projects are the subject of a separate staff report to the Committee’s 20 August 2014 meeting.

Decision Making Process

32. 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:

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

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

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

32.4. The persons affected by this decision are those people with an interest in the sustainable management of region’s land and freshwater resources under the RMA.

32.5. Options that have been considered include doing nothing, establishing the scope, relative priorities and implementation programme of any plan changes required to fully implement the 2014 NPPSFM with or without reference to the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan development process.

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

32.7. 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

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives the report titled 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

2. Considers the implications of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management when considering the Resource Management Planning Programme for consideration in the Long Term Plan process.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SUBJECT: Resource Management Planning in Long Term Plan

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of the Regional Planning Committee is to oversee the review and development of the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plans (including plan changes) for the Hawke’s Bay region, as required under the Resource Management Act 1991. These include the Regional Resource Management Plan and the Regional Coastal Environment Plan.

2. One of the specific responsibilities is to implement a work programme for the review of the Council’s regional plans and regional policy statements prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. The purpose of this report is to provide an early opportunity for the Regional Planning Committee to consider the resource management planning programme that is anticipated to be considered as part of the upcoming Long Term Plan process.

4. The Long Term Plan outlines the Council’s strategic direction for the 10 year period from 2015 – 25.

5. Under the Local Government Act, Council is required to prepare a Long Term Plan for a 10 year period every three years. There is considerable focus on land and water management both in terms of science investigations and planning as well as finding solutions to improve water quality and water security.

Draft Resource Management Planning Programme

6. Attachment 1 shows a list of resource management planning activities that are either currently programmed or are new and proposed for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan process. Resource requirements and funding for these programmes are currently being assessed and may result in changes /deletions to the programme and/or changes in timeframes.

7. Some members of the Committee have previously asked when regional plans for catchments relevant to their rohe will be undertaken. Current priority catchments are identified as the Mohaka, Tukituki and the Tutaekuri/Ahuriri/Ngaruroro/Karamu Catchments. The expectation is that the remaining catchments of the region will be addressed collectively. This is covered by Item 9 in Attachment 1.

8. This does not mean that the remaining catchments are currently without planning controls. They are covered by the region wide provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan and these will also be subject to review under Item 10 in Attachment 1.

9. The Committee is asked to consider whether there are any additional resource management issues that it considers warrant being addressed through the development of a strategy and /or a regional planning document and that it would like Council to consider as part of the Long Term Plan process. It is recognized that members will need some time to discuss this with the groups they represent and so the recommendation is for members to report back at its October meeting. This will enable any additional resourcing requirements to be considered at its November Long Term Plan workshops.

Financial and Resource Implications

10. Resource management planning activities are funded from the general funding. While existing budget will cover the costs of some of the existing programmes, any additional funding requirement is likely to put pressure on general rates. This will be considered as part of the Long Term Plan process.

Decision Making Process

11. 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:

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

11.2. The use of the special consultative procedure will be used as part of the Long Term Plan process. This decision precedes that process.

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

11.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

11.5. Options that have been considered include doing nothing and providing feedback or not on the draft resource management planning programme. It is appropriate that the Regional Planning Committee have input into the resource management planning programme for the next ten years.

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

11.7. 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

That the Regional Planning Committee:

1. Receives the report titled Resource Management Planning for the Long Term Plan.

2. Considers the draft Resource Management Planning programme in Attachment 1 and reports back at the October meeting on any additional planning programmes that it would like Council to consider as part of the Long Term Plan development process.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Summary of Resource Management Planning Activities

Summary of Resource Management Planning Activities

Attachment 1

Draft Resource Management Planning Programmes for consideration in the Long Term Plan 2015-25

	Status – Existing or New	Strategy/Plan	Statutory or non statutory process	Drivers	Current Status	Phase	Notification Date	Anticipated Completion Date	Links to other current programmes	Size of Job	Level of Community Engagement

1	Existing	Tukituki Plan Change 6	Statutory	Catchment pressure / NPSFM	Completed	Under appeal
2	Existing	Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri Plan Change - TANK	Statutory	Catchment pressure / NPSFM	Started	In development / Science, Engagement	Dec 2016	Dec 2019	Science Outstanding Water Bodies	H	High - multi
3	Existing	Mohaka Plan Change	Statutory	Catchment pressure / NPSFM	Started	In development / Science, Engagement	Dec 2014 (likely to move)	Dec 2018		M	Med - multi
4	Existing	RPS Change - Natural Hazards	Statutory	CDEM/HB Councils	Started	Draft prepared / Informal consultation pending	July 2015	Dec 2018	Coastal Strategy	L	Med - sector
5	Existing	RPS Change - Outstanding Freshwater Bodies/Wetlands	Statutory	NPSFM	Not yet started		Dec 2016	Dec 2018	Change 5 appeal TANK Potential MfE project Biodiversity Strategy	M	Med - multi
6a	Existing	Biodiversity Strategy – draft	Non-statutory	Community	Started		Finalise June 2015	Jun 2015		L	Med - multi
6b	Existing	RPS Change - Biodiversity	Statutory	Community	Not yet started		Dec 2016	Jun 2018	Biodiversity Strategy Outstanding Freshwater Bodies and Wetlands	L	Med - multi
7a	New	Coastal Strategy (start 2014-15)	Non-statutory	Climate change impacts	Started	Establishment		Jun 2016?	RCEP, RPS Natural Hazards	M	Med - multi
7b	New	RCEP change	Statutory	NZCPS	Not yet started		Dec 2017	Jun 2019	Coastal Strategy, RPS Natural Hazards, NZCPS	M	High - multi
8a	New	Energy Strategy	Non-statutory	Community / regional leadership	Not yet started	Scoping		Jun 2017		M	Med - multi
8b	New	RPS/Regional Plan – Oil and Gas Development ‘Interim Fix’	Statutory	Community / regional leadership	Started	Scoping	Dec2015	Dec 2017		L	Med - multi
9	New	Rest of region plan change ( to implement NPSFM – predict default type limits)	Statutory	NPSFM	Not yet started		Dec 2018	2025	Potentially ‘RRMP 10 year review	H	Med - multi
10	New	RPS/Regional Plan (RRMP) 10 Year Review (parts not subject to change in last 10 years	Statutory	RMA review requirements	Not yet started		Start review by August 2016 Jun 2018		Potentially ‘Rest of region’ plan change for NPS	H	Med - multi
11	New	East Coast Hill Country Strategy –	Non-statutory	Multiple – NPS, climate change, improved resilience	Not yet started	Scoping				M	High -multi

Sit Rep Update - August

Attachment 1

ATTACHMENT 1 - Resource Management plan Change Status Report as at 31 July 2014

Current Project

LTP/AP Performance Target

Update

Regional Coastal Environment Plan (‘RCEP’)

2014-15, Develop plan change(s) to give effect to the 2010 NZ Coastal Policy Statement (‘NZCPS’).

2014-15, start review of the RCEP’s coastal hazard zones for coastline between Tangoio and Clifton, as part of preparation of a hazard management strategy for that coastline
(see Project 322).

RCEP and associated Variations 1, 2 and 3 were initially referred to the Minister in December 2012, and repeated with fuller documentation in July 2013. Minister of Conservation eventually issued his approval on 19 June 2014. This sluggish approval phase has delayed other coastal planning initiatives.

The Group Manager Strategic Development has delegated authority to select a date when the RCEP is to become operative (likely to be late August 2014).

A consultant has been engaged to undertake a ‘gap analysis’ of how the RCEP gives effect to the 2010 NZCPS. The Consultant’s analysis report is presented as a separate item to the Regional Planning Committee’s 20^th August 2014 meeting. Future programme and progress on Plan Change development to give effect to the 2010NZCPS will be informed by the Committee’s discussion, and the Council’s broader discussions regarding Long Term Plan priorities and resourcing issues.

‘Change 1’ to RRMP
(Geographic coverage of coastal environment)

Nil

Change 1 is closely related to the RCEP. Change 1 is to be made operative at same time RCEP is made operative.

‘Change 5’ to RRMP
(land and freshwater management)

2014-15, Appeals on Change 5 are resolved.

Council’s decisions remain under appeal by four parties. Mediation sessions on those four appeals (plus associated interested parties) have been facilitated by an Environment Commissioner at Ahuriri on 21-23 October 2013, 13-14 March and 17-19 June 2014. In-principle agreements on range of matters were reached on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. One bundle of agreements relates to the definition of ‘wetland’ and involves additional work being done by HBRC to map the extent of six wetlands and their ephemeral margins. Another draft agreement document covering virtually everything else is currently being circulated amongst the parties for their signatures before the signed agreement is forwarded to the Court for approval. The current draft agreement would fully resolve the appeals by Horticulture NZ and Federated Farmers.

A formal Environment Court hearing is likely to be required to determine unresolved points of the appeal by Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Inc regarding the wording of groundwater quality objectives. The Court is yet to set a specific hearing date.

‘Change 6’ to RRMP
(Tukituki River Catchment)

May 2013, notify plan change for Tukituki River catchment.

Board of Inquiry issued its Final decision on 26 June 2014. Two appeals on points of law have been lodged with the High Court. Next steps in those High Court proceedings are yet to be announced by the Court.

Also see separate item on 20 August 2014 Regional Planning Committee agenda regarding Change 6 implementation issues.

Taharua/Mohaka Catchment plan change

December 2014, notify plan change for Taharua/ upper Mohaka River catchment.

Under preparation. Not yet notified.

Full update presented at 19 February Regional Planning Committee meeting. Consultant engaged to undertake first phase of a ‘recreational values’ mapping and identification task. Mohaka Catchment Characterisation Report in drafting intended to be shared with participants of ‘Mohaka Consultation Group’.

Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area plan change
(a.k.a. ‘TANK’ project)

December 2016, notify plan change for Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Catchment Area.

Under preparation. Not yet notified.

Thirteenth meeting of the TANK Group held on 22 July (second meeting since publication of the Group’s Interim Report). ‘TANK Science Technical Advisory Group’ has had several meetings.

Natural hazards and land use management plan change

July 2015, notify plan change for natural hazards.

Initial scoping of plan change commenced during the reporting period in liaison with review of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan. A preliminary first draft version has been prepared but further work is on hold pending shape of Resource Management reforms and parental leave of project’s lead planner. Not yet notified.

Outstanding freshwater bodies plan change

July 2016, notify change for outstanding freshwater bodies

Not yet commenced. Negotiations on Change 5’s appeals, plus recent amendments to NPSFM have some influence on this project. Meanwhile in June, staff lodged a proposal for approx. $100,000 of MfE’s Community Environment Funding be directed toward a project involving development of national guidance for criteria suitable for assessing the outstanding-ness of freshwater bodies. The proposal also put forward Hawke's Bay region being a ‘pilot’ to test the workability of any criteria and methodology developed. MfE are yet to release its decisions regarding successful funding applications.

Oil and gas policy development

2014-15, initiate community engagement on oil and gas exploration policy development.

Community engagement not yet commenced. Refer to separate staff report to Regional Planning Committee for 20^th August 2014 meeting.

Statutory Acknowledgements of Treaty settlements

n/a

From time to time, Treaty settlement legislation requires local authorities to attach ‘statutory acknowledgements’ to RMA planning documents. These Statutory Acknowledgements are not part of the plans and policy statement per se and do not require prior adoption by Council. As at the date of reporting July, the following Statutory Acknowledgements exist:

Iwi	Settlement date	Statutory Acknowledgments
Ngati Pahauwera	June 2012	1
Maungaharuru-Tangitu*	May 2014	30

* Editing and printing of Maungaharuru-Tangitu Statutory Acknowledgements currently in progress.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 20 August 2014

SUBJECT: RMA Section 35a Requirements

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of the paper is twofold. Firstly, it is to provide an overview of the requirements in section 35A of the Resource Management Act 1991 to keep and maintain records of iwi and hapu in the region. Secondly, it is to update the Committee on how the region’s local authorities led by the Regional Council, are working together to build a GIS-based application for improved s35A RMA record-keeping.

2. A paper virtually identical to this one was presented to the Maori Committee at its meeting in June 2014.

Background

3. Section 35A of the RMA requires councils to keep and maintain records about iwi authorities and any groups that represent hapu for RMA purposes. Similar requirements are also placed on the Crown. Such records may include statutory areas defined by legislation (RMA or others such as the Fisheries Act 1996); organisations recognised in statutes; and Post Settlement Entities recognised by the Crown for RMA purposes.

4. Specifically, councils must keep and maintain:

4.1. the contact details of each iwi authority and any groups that represent hapu for RMA purposes;

4.2. planning documents recognised by each iwi authority and lodged with the council; and

4.3. any area where iwi or hapu exercise kaitiakitanga.

5. The local authority must include in its records all the information provided to it by the Crown, but may seek and hold other information from other sources. The duty to keep and maintain records in relation to hapu is only applicable if that hapu requests the Crown or local authority to include the relevant information. Any such records of iwi and hapu groups must only be used for RMA purposes.

6. Other RMA requirements associated with records of iwi authorities and hapu groups include:

6.1. Schedule 1 Clause 3(1)(d) - councils shall consult “with tangata whenua of the area who may be so affected, through iwi authorities” during preparation of policy statements and plans [emphasis added]

6.2. Schedule 1 Clause 3(1)(e) - councils may consult with anyone else during preparation of policy statements and plans [emphasis added]

6.3. S36A – explicitly states that an applicant and council do not have any duty to consult any person regarding the preparation, processing or decision-making in relation to a resource consent.

7. Hawke's Bay Regional Council already keeps records of iwi authorities and marae/hapu groups. Those records are currently in spread sheet form. From time to time, additional references may be made to online resources from other organisations such as:

7.1. Te Kahui Mangai provided by Te Puni Kokiri on behalf of the Crown (www.tkm.govt.nz)

7.2. Maori Maps provided by Te Potiki National Trust (www.maorimaps.com) and

7.3. Tuhono iwi info provided by the Tūhono Trust (formerly known as the Tautoko Māori Trust) (www.tuhono.net).

8. Currently, each of the main city and district councils in Hawke's Bay holds variable information about iwi authorities and hapu groups in their respective Districts.

Development of a GIS-based application

9. In May 2014, planning and GIS staff from each of the four TLAs and Hawke's Bay Regional Council met and discussed development of a digital repository of information regarding iwi and hapu groups in the Hawke's Bay region. Those present agreed that a regional GIS-based application that spatially records location of marae and contact details would complement improvements to how councils meet the requirements of s35A RMA. Improvements can be made collectively and made available through a GIS/web-based application covering the whole Hawke's Bay region, rather than each council continuing to hold individual sets of records for s35A RMA purposes.

10. In addition to data required to fulfil councils’ obligations under s35A RMA, the following was considered to be additional useful capability to potentially build into a regional data repository over time:

Information	Details
Areas of interest/significance relating to kaitiakitanga	Hapu ‘precincts’ Buffer zones
Filtered public information	‘Swiss Bank’ of site/area information e.g. sensitive waahi tapu information.
Hapu/marae contact details	Websites, postal, phone, contact personnel
Marae locations	Maps and photos
Publicly available cultural/heritage sites Waahi Tapu sites	Heritage New Zealand NZ Archaeological Association District Plans Regional Plans
Related hapu/iwi planning documents	Hapu Management Plans MOUs; Protocols; Agreements, etc.
Website links	Hapu/iwi websites Hapu Management Plans

Next Steps

11. In relation to iwi authorities, data already exists and has been obtained from Te Kahui Mangai – the Crown’s dataset of iwi authorities and groups representing hapu for RMA purposes.

12. In relation to marae locations and associated hapu contacts, the Regional Council, Hastings District Council and Wairoa District Council have various existing GIS datasets. Central Hawke's Bay District Council and Napier City Council would require further resources to develop datasets for marae location and contact information. At the May meeting of council staff representatives, it was agreed that the collation of additional information should start with the engagement of marae/hapu. Details of any such engagement are yet to be planned.

13. As the majority of spatial and contact information is already readily available online, the council staff representatives considered that it was appropriate to publish information in a regional GIS-based application. The development of a ‘pilot’ application can be undertaken by the Regional Council in the short-term using existing datasets supplied by the TLAs. Further discussion will be required regarding on-going maintenance of the datasets.

14. Planning and GIS staff will have further discussions about development of the GIS-based application to keep and maintain records for s35A RMA purposes; and medium-term, keep and maintain records of marae and hapu for broader local government engagement and decision-making purposes.

Decision Making Process

15. 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.

Recommendation

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “RMA Section 35A Requirements” report.

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] NPSFM Policy E1(e) reads:

Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

^{^[2]} The 2011 NPSFM required councils to fully implement it by 2030. Amendments made by the Government to the NPSFM that come into effect from 1 August 2014 require the NSPFM to be fully implemented by 2025.

^{^[3]} NPSFM Policy E1(e) reads:

Where a regional council has adopted a programme of staged implementation, it is to publicly report, in every year, on the extent to which the programme has been implemented.

[4] The Government has opted to put RM reforms on hold until after elections in September 2014.

[5] Copies can be made available to other people upon request by contacting the Regional Planning Committee’s Secretary, Maureen Drury.

[9] The human health value previously proposed has been merged with the recreation value into one compulsory value. Councils are required under this value to consider whether to manage water in rivers and lakes for swimming or any other level above the national bottom line, which is set at a level suitable for wading and boating.

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.