Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
1	Follow-ups from previous meetings	Hourly charge-out rates for provision of information queried	P Drury	March 14	To be determined through Annual Plan process
2	Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Investment - Proposed Evaluation Process	Expressions of Interest for independent review/assessment of the RWSS business case	E Lambert	29Jan 2014	Presentations by shortlisted consultants scheduled 29 January

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
3	Annual Plan Progress Report	Briefing on progress of the development of a regional and lower North Island spatial planning framework	H Codlin	Feb 14	Report to Regional Planning Committee 19 February
4	Annual Plan Progress Report	Investigate – during Annual Plan process – whether the fund set up to help TLA led upgrading of community wastewater systems in unsewered communities can be re-allocated or whether there are potential opportunities where it might actually be used.	H Codlin / E Lambert	April 14	To be determined through Annual Plan process

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 January 2014

SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Reason for Report

1. The Government has invited submissions on a discussion document^{^[1]} that proposes a variety of amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The deadline for submissions on the proposed amendments is 4 February 2014.

2. This paper summarises the discussion document’s proposals^{^[2]} and recommends lending support to a sector-wide submission currently being prepared by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ). With this support in mind, a separate submission specific to this Council’s interests has not been drafted by staff to accompany this report.

Discussion

3. On 7 November 2013, the Government announced the next steps in its programme of freshwater management reform. The discussion document advances the reform programme set out in the earlier, higher-level Freshwater Reform 2013 and Beyond (March 2013), and builds on the recommendations of the stakeholder-led Land and Water Forum. The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) hosted two public meetings in Napier on 21 November to present an overview of the discussion document’s proposed amendments.

4. The existing NPSFM already requires regional councils to:

4.1. maintain or improve overall water quality within a region

4.2. safeguard the life-supporting capacity, ecosystem processes and indigenous species (including their associated ecosystems) of fresh water and

4.3. set freshwater objectives and limits for all water bodies.

5. These requirements will still be in the NPSFM alongside the Government’s proposed additions to the NPSFM that:

5.1. require regional councils to account for all water takes and contaminant discharges

5.2. include a national framework to support communities setting freshwater objectives

5.3. provide explicit recognition of tangata whenua values for fresh water

5.4. establish ecosystem and human health as compulsory values in regional plans

5.5. introduce ‘bottom lines’ for ecosystem and human health that apply everywhere

5.6. include restricted grounds for exceptions to ‘bottom lines'.

6. The Government’s proposed amendments are designed to:

6.1. continue the improvement of freshwater management; and

6.2. address concerns emerging since the introduction of the NPSFM in 2011, including decisions being made with insufficient information; a lack of clarity as to appropriate values for freshwater management, and how to generate those values; and consistency in the application of science (in both setting minimum acceptable states for freshwater and in monitoring) nationwide.

7. The seven proposed amendments are briefly summarised following.

Proposal 1 - Accounting for water takes and all sources of contaminants

8. Good freshwater management decision-making requires good information. Accordingly, councils would be required to establish and operate a water quality and quantity accounting system. Systems may use real and modelled data. They will need to account for all water takes (including permitted, stock, domestic and unauthorised takes) and relevant contaminants (including diffuse discharges) for each ‘freshwater management unit’ (FMU) (where an FMU can be a single water body, part of a water body, or a group of similar water bodies).

Proposal 2 - A new National Objectives Framework (NOF)

9. The proposed NOF sets a framework for councils when setting freshwater management objectives and limits (as the NPS already requires). The proposed NOF contains:

9.1. A ‘menu’ of values important to communities and tāngata whenua. These include tāngata whenua values, recreational use, food safety/security, irrigation, water supply and navigation values. Communities choose values from this list to reflect what is important to them in a local context for each FMU.

9.2. A list of the associated ‘attributes and attribute states’ that will need to be achieved to provide for the particular value(s) chosen. Attributes are essentially scientific benchmarks (e.g. concentration of a contaminant) against which an FMU is to be managed. Attributes may be selected to four bands, A-D, representing descending order of water quality, depending on community aspirations.

9.3. An iterative process for how to set management objectives. Objectives are intended environmental outcomes in an FMU, and should provide for the values that communities hold for their freshwater. Objectives are goals or future desired states, not immediate standards. The discussion document implies a preference for numeric over narrative objectives.

Proposal 3 - Compulsory values for ecosystem and human health

10. Two of the values in the NOF are proposed as compulsory for each FMU: the ‘life-supporting capacity of freshwater ecosystems’, and ‘safeguarding human health for secondary contact recreation’. Compulsory attribute states relate to each of those values. Communities can choose other values for FMUs in addition to these compulsory values.

Proposal 4 - National bottom lines for compulsory values

11. National bottom lines constitute the minimum acceptable states for the attributes associated with the two compulsory values, unless an FMU comes within an exemptions framework (discussed below). Otherwise, where water quality in an FMU is below these minima, councils would be required to set objectives at or above the bottom line and set an initial limit on resource use.

Proposal 5 - An exemptions framework to ‘national bottom lines’

12. An exemptions framework would allow objectives incorporating attribute states below national bottom lines in narrowly defined situations. Exemptions would cover situations where it is not feasible or possible to improve water quality above a bottom line. Where this is due to the natural conditions of the environment or to historic activities, a council could propose exemptions. However, exemptions relating to the existence or provision of infrastructure would be decided by Government.

Proposal 6 - Clearer articulation of tāngata whenua values for fresh water

13. Amendments to the NPS will see the clearer expression of Te Mana o te Wai – “the innate relationship between te hauora o te wai (the health and mauri of water) and te hauora o te taiao (the health and mauri of the environment), and their ability to support each other, whilst sustaining te hauora o te tangata (the health and mauri of the people)." Tangata whenua values are also part of the NOF in Proposal 2.

Proposal 7 - Monitoring progress towards achieving freshwater objectives

14. Councils will be required to develop a monitoring plan that directs the monitoring of progress towards, and achievement of, freshwater objectives; identifies representative sites for monitoring; and that captures changes in water quality over the long term.

Sector submission

15. The regional sector (i.e. regional and unitary councils) has been closely involved in developing the NOF and continues to be closely involved with the Ministry, particularly on matters of implementation. Two MfE-led workshops were hosted specifically for regional council science and policy staff.

16. The Regional Sector Group (RSG) and Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) have been working closely to develop a submission which is sector-wide – that is, reflects the regional sector position and the wider local government sector. In doing this, the RSG and LGNZ are hopeful that individual councils will not need to, nor choose to, make their own separate submissions on the discussion document.

17. At the time of writing, preparation of the sector-wide submission to be lodged by LGNZ was still in progress, albeit that a first-cut of content for the local government sector-wide submission has been circulated to regional planning and science networks for feedback. The first-cut draft sector submission (Attachment 1) identifies the issues and suggests a response.

18. Staff support the approach of a sector-wide submission on this discussion document. The proposals do not preclude local solutions for local circumstances, but do provide a clearer framework for water management policy decisions in Hawke's Bay and the rest of New Zealand.

19. Staff will circulate a copy of LGNZ’s final submission to Councillors once completed, but note that that is most likely to occur after the Council meeting on 29 January.

What happens next?

20. There are two processes that the Minister for the Environment may choose from when changing an NPS. Rather than follow a process involving appointment of a Board of Inquiry, the Minister has chosen the alternative process which involves:

20.1. MfE officials summarising and analysing submissions received, then reporting and making recommendations to the Minister;

20.2. Minister considers officials’ report and recommendations, and may make changes as she thinks fit;

20.3. If the Minister chooses to progress amendments to the NPSFM, then the Minister will recommend that the Governor General approve the amended NPSFM;

20.4. The Minister issues and notifies the amended NPSFM. Pending public feedback and Cabinet decisions, the NPSFM amendments will come into effect in later this year.

Financial and Resource Implications

21. There are no direct financial or resource implications regarding the preparation of a submission on the discussion document. Staff time associated with reviewing the document, participating in workshops hosted by MfE and preparation of a submission is catered for within the ‘Statutory Advocacy’ project (Project 196).

22. If carried into the NPS, the amendments are likely to require additional expenditure by the regional and unitary councils, particularly in establishing and operating a water quantity/quality accounting system, in establishing objectives under the NOF, and possibly in meeting the proposed monitoring requirements.

23. After the NPSFM’s amendments are finalised, then it would be timely to assess the degree of difference in resourcing requirements over and above those already budgeted for in Council’s programme for progressively implementing the NPSFM.

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

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 all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources.

24.5. Options that have been considered include:

24.5.1. to lodge a submission;

24.5.2. to not lodge a submission; and

24.5.3. to not lodge a submission but lend support to the sector-wide submission being prepared by Local Government New Zealand and its regional water subgroup.

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. Notwithstanding this, any person has the opportunity to make their own submission to the Ministry for the Environment on proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Recommendations

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. Agrees to not lodge its own separate submission on the Government’s proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

3. Agrees to inform Local Government New Zealand:

3.1. of its decision to not lodge its own separate submission on the Government’s proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management; and

3.2. that the Hawke's Bay Regional Council supports preparation of a Local Government sector submission.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

First Draft LGNZ Submission on Proposed NPSFM Amendments

First Draft LGNZ Submission on Proposed NPSFM Amendments

Attachment 1

Proposed amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

Summary of issues and suggested responses
[prepared for the Regional Sector Group and Local Government New Zealand]

23 December 2013

Topic area

Issue and suggested response

General comments:

There are some internal inconsistencies within the policy framework (discussed below) but the National Objectives Framework is useful and credible, and provides a solid basis for implementing the NPSFM.

The cost to replace/upgrade infrastructure (especially stormwater infrastructure) to meet national bottom lines is unknown. While work is currently underway to capture some of this data it is currently unknown and therefore neither the RIS [regulatory impact statement] nor the s 32 evaluation can hope to accurately quantify this. The framework needs to be flexible enough to allow for scenarios where the cost of replacing infrastructure is simply uneconomic.

The framework for the forthcoming Environmental Reporting Bill needs to acknowledge the requirements imposed by the NPSFM and not duplicate the effort (and cost) which will be borne by each regional council. This is outlined in greater detail at the end of this table. [refer end of this document for further commentary]

It is unclear whether numerical objectives have precedence over narrative objectives is unclear

Response sought:

Clarify whether numerical objectives have precedence over narrative objectives.

There is an issue of internal consistency between the NPSFM and proposed Amendments, relating to Interpretation section and Objective A2. The amendment to the NPSFM introduces a Freshwater Management Unit (FMU). It has a wide definition in the interpretation section as the primary management unit for setting objectives and for freshwater management and accounting.

The existing NPSFM requires the overall quality of fresh water within each region is either maintained or improved. The amendment proposes that this be achieved through a new system based around FMU, however, there is no link between objective setting, accounting and reporting requirements for FMU s and the overall condition of water quality within each region. There is potential for FMU s to be defined such that they relate to management imperatives that only partially cover a region. This may not allow Objective A2 to be achieved unless the each region is fully covered by FMUs.

Response sought:

Regional councils to determine FMUs within a region and amend the Interpretation section for FMU to include: “Freshwater management unit” is the water body, multiple water bodies or any part of a water body determined by the regional council as the appropriate spatial scale for setting freshwater objectives and limits and for freshwater accounting and management. All waterbodies in a region are to be covered by integrated social and hydrologically coherent Freshwater Management Units.

More transparency and clarity in explaining the relationship between the work of the science advisory groups and what has ended up in appendix 2 - particularly with respect to definitions and statistical measures

Response sought:

Supporting documentation/technical guidance provides detailed underpinning of science behind Appendix 2 – cross-referenced to technical publications as appropriate.

The NOF imposes significant information requirements – many of these may already be part of RC work programmes, but if the intentions of the NOF around national consistency are to be realised, implementation guidance is critical. Water contaminant accounting is a case in point

Response sought:

Supporting documentation/technical guidance clarifies information requirements and timeframes for delivery, with illustrative examples where these would be helpful.

Many of the “quality” outcomes sought by communities for freshwater bodies relate to habitat loss and modification, which are not measured directly in the framework. The importance of direct measures of biological health (such as MCI-type indices) can’t be over-estimated.

Response sought:

A measure of macro-invertebrate health be included in Appendix 2. A timetable for inclusion of other direct measures of the health of water bodies be included in supporting documentation.

Freshwater management units (FMUs) and water quality “bands” are potentially very important tools for giving expression to community objectives, and for dealing with concepts such as “maintain or improve overall water quality”, and (for FMUs), water quality accounting. Substantial guidance is needed on the way FMUs and bands should be applied. As currently proposed, do bands have any utility beyond water quality classification?

Response sought:

Amend the proposed amendments, to constrain maintenance or improvement of overall water quality to within (as opposed to between) FMUs. Include direction/guidance on the way water quality accounting works in a FMU context. Provide clarity on the purpose and function of water quality bands/states.

The NPSFM as it currently stands offers little direction on the application of the “maintain or improve overall water quality” concept in relation to:

· Water quality outcomes

· Scale

· Relevant water quality variables

The proposed changes do not appear to address this shortcoming.

Response sought:

Provide direction/guidance on the application of the “maintain or improve” concept. This should include guidance on the “equivalence” of outcomes (improvement in one attribute/value versus a decline in another), the spatial scale at which maintenance or improvement will be evaluated, and the range of parameters relevant to such considerations.

The discussion document signals additions to appendix 2. It is important that the way the attributes table is to be updated and subsequent transition implemented, is explained carefully, so that changes can be anticipated and provided for in the design of monitoring programmes.

Response sought:

Include a firm timeframe and process for attribute changes (additions plus amendments). Provide guidance on council expectations for incorporation of likely future attributes.

Te Mana o te Wai

(as part of Objective A1)

This is a holistic concept and cannot easily be deconstructed into individual components. The expansion of National values in a new Appendix 1 that replaces the list in the current preamble assists interpretation whilst also potentially limiting the expression of Te Mana o te Wai. We understand that the two proposed compulsory values are only contributions to Te Mana o te Wai and that additional values are required, and that the identified value expressed as human health for secondary contact is insufficient to satisfy the concept.

Response sought:

Support inclusion of Appendix 1, but not the inclusion of Te Mana o te Wai as part of Objective A1.

The wider of Te Mana o te Wai should be recognised in all activities associated with freshwater management in New Zealand through an explicit reference in section D Policy D1(c) of the NPSFM, Tangata whenua roles and interests.

The inclusion of Te Mana o te Wai as an element of Objective A1 and particularly the recognition of Natural form and character is not supported without explicit recognition of the value of infrastructure e.g community flood protection schemes in the form of exemptions.

Freshwater management unit

There is a lack of clarity about what national consistency will apply to (Objective CA1))

Response sought:

Clarify that national consistency will only apply with regard to national bottom lines in Water Management Units – all others will recognise local circumstances.

Clarify that the national consistency element is the values and attributes and the regional variation is the band within FMUs?

Clarity required as to whether groundwater to be included. Separate to surface water? How much flexibility in setting both?

Response sought:

Include in guidance material clear explanation of the relationship between the FMU and the water resources of the region, overall. Clarify that all parts of the region must be part of a FMU. Provide examples of the way ground and surface water resources might be treated in the FMU concept, particularly where these are hydraulically linked.

Lack of guidance on size etc - too large could obscure differences between individual ecosystems when applying accounting system.

Response sought:

Include a requirement to ensure that FMUs are defined at a scale which enables all values to accounted for.

Policy CB1 implies a bespoke monitoring programme for each Water Management Unit. This is potentially internally inconsistent with current regional effort and devalues the benefit of long terms records maintained by regional councils (see CB1(c)). Potentially inconsistent with appendix II with representative requirement and for sampling for DO [dissolved oxygen] required to be below a discharge.

The influence of freshwater resources on coastal waters is clear in the NZCPS [New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement]. The link to the management of freshwater bodies through the FMUs in the establishment of freshwater objectives for water quality Policy A1(a)(iii) and water quantity PolicyB1(c) reinforces this relationship is supported. So too is the recognition in section C “Integrated management” of the links between land use and coastal water through freshwater bodies as a vector.

Response sought:

Retain the explicit links between freshwater bodies and their management using Freshwater Management Units with coastal water.

Exemptions

Should apply to quantity as well as quality.^{^[3]}

Response sought:

Clarify the reasons that quantity is of itself not an attribute, and the responsibilities of regions to account for quantity factors when setting objectives.

“naturally occurring processes”, “historic” and “regionally significant infrastructure” should be defined.

Response sought:

Include definitions of these within the regulation.

Consider criteria and scope of exemptions.

Monitoring

Support concept of councils identifying representative monitoring sites.

Could be significant cost implications if monitoring programme has to be re-aligned to NOF attributes – increase transition time for implementing policies CC1 & CC2.

Response sought:

Clarify expectation in relation to the sequencing of monitoring programme development and objective and limit setting in individual FMUs.

Need a standardised methodology and approach for cultural health monitoring and reporting.

Response sought:

Provide guidance/direction on the ways monitoring programmes should be aligned to recognise Tāngata Whenua values and interests in freshwater quality outcomes.

How is “existing water quality” to be determined?

Response sought:

Include definition in relation to NPS promulgation date(s), and/or regional plan processes.

Freshwater quality accounting system

Concept sound & reasonable

Objective CC1 c. It is impossible to determine if a quantity or quality limit has been breached over a whole catchment.

Response sought:

Clarify the role of modelling/estimation in assessing outcomes.

Need to clarify what “national water management and monitoring purposes” means – cost implications.

Response sought:

Provide, preferably within the regulation, but at least in guidance material, clear expectations of regional councils with respect to national information requirements.

Timing should be based on staged implementation to reflect limit setting programme – not an arbitrary 2 year deadline.^{^[4]}

Response sought:

Confirm that implementation of the accounting system for each FMU is to be staged in accordance with the limit setting programme.

Difficult to account for all discharges – need national level support and guidance.

Response sought:

Provide guidance, possibly through examples, on what an accounting programme “commensurate with the significance of the freshwater quality and freshwater quantity issues, respectively, in each freshwater management unit” might look like.

General support for inclusion of ecosystem health as national compulsory value (status quo), notwithstanding cost implications (eg cyanobacteria).

Secondary contact – irrelevant in many water ways (too small/too fast).

Response sought:

None???

Attributes

General support for concept and recognition of the value of national consistency.

Table on P21 of the discussion document is indicative only and should be labelled as such.

Response sought:

Make the status, and future development, of the attribute list clear in guidance/ technical support documents .

Key attributes not identified include habitat and metal toxicity (eg copper and zinc, for urban streams).

Response sought:

Amend the table to include these attributes as part of the forward work programme.

Inclusion of urban contaminants demonstrates that the table is “national “ one, and not just rurally focused. However, the extreme difficulty in meeting NOF bottom lines for some urban streams needs to acknowledged, as do the facts that:

· In the absence of requirements in respect of habitat, sediment and heavy metals, many urban streams that met (or were made to meet) proposed bottom lines would still have little or no habitat or recreational value

· There is a lack of remediation options available to arrest the decline of urbanising streams.

Response sought:

Include direct measures of urban stream health in appendix 2 and/or the P21 table

Acknowledge the difficulties in meeting bottom lines in some urban (and rural) situations in supporting documentation, and emphasise the importance of timeframes.

Partial population of the table means potential inefficiencies as attributes added.

Response sought:

See above. Make the status, and future development, of the attribute list is clear in guidance/technical support documents.

Exclusion (essentially) of groundwater is problematic, given the importance of this water resource. The NOF would benefit from a clear statement that where groundwater is valued as a source of drinking water, then the appropriate attributes are those of the NZDWS [NZ Drinking Water Standards], and that otherwise its management (including the setting of limits) should provide for the values of hydraulically linked surface water .

Response sought:

Include, as a note, or in the body of the regulation, a statement recognising the importance of groundwater as a source of drinking water and the regulatory implications for water so managed. Also include the requirement, when setting limits for surface waters, of accounting for hydraulically linked groundwater.

Cyanobacteria and periphyton – why the departure from the national freshwater monitoring protocol? – cost implications in doing so.

Response sought:

Provide reference to technical background material which explains the change, and provides guidance on monitoring strategy.

Discrepancy between the background technical report and the attributes chosen for periphyton, with the former proposing two classes with a different number of permitted exceedances. Need to revert to two classes, with guidance on selection criteria.

Response sought:

Amend appendix 2 accordingly.

SFRG [Suitability for Recreation grade] gradings the wrong measure – should use actual E coli concentrations^{^[5]}

Response sought:

Replace the SFRG grades in the primary contact recreation table with the equivalent E coli concentration thresholds for each breakpoint.

Choice of median for secondary contact needs to be explained along with the associated health implications, given its departure from the general approach.

Response sought:

Incorporate explanatory footnote in the relevant attribute table, or in supporting guidance material.

Nitrate and ammonia toxicity requirements of the NOF require flow measurement to determine concentration – costs.^{^[6]}

Response sought:

None.

Ecological health requirements with respect to total N in lakes are too stringent. Leads to apparent inconsistencies - could be A state for N toxicity but D for plant growth. Is vigorous plant growth in a shallow lake really a problem for ecological health? Is N toxicity a useful attribute for lakes?

Response sought:

Remove lakes from the attribute table for nitrate-N toxicity.

Lake classification not fine-grained enough to recognise important differences between shallow-turbid, deep unproductive and “classic” eutrophic. Attributes too restrictive. Need to define “brackish”.

Response sought:

Provide a third lake class – “shallow turbid” – with relevant attribute numbers for N and P.

Absence of biological attributes is a major weakness. This is particularly with respect to invertebrates but also applies to fish. There are compelling grounds for inclusion of MCI now:

· uses a level of information common across all macro- invertebrate sampling programmes

· has an accepted methodology for application

· responds predictably to many pressures

· has existing bands which are widely applied across the country.

Response sought:

As above. Include a measure of macro-invertebrate health in appendix 2.

Serious issues with DO [dissolved oxygen] concentrations:

· Which point sources? (organic vs inorganic waste)

· How far “downstream”? – difficult finding the point of lowest concentration

· Specification of sampling interval.

Wording implies continuous monitoring - substantial cost implications for some councils.

Response sought:

Specify requirements with respect to DO measurement in the regulation, or remove DO as an attribute. Indicate a 5 year time frame for implementation to address cost burden.

Numeric criteria for cyanobacteria refer to a two-year “average”. Should be “median”. Statistically more appropriate and consistent with other attribute measures.

Response sought:

Change to median or provide explanatory footnote, cross-reference to guidance material.

Health risk associated with cyanobacteria threshold should be quantified – consistency with E. coli (equivalence of risk).

Response sought:

Include the infection/symptom risk for cyanobacteria exposure in the narrative attribute state part of the table.

Need to align NEMAR [National Environmental Monitoring and Reporting] and NOF processes – use the former to help develop the latter.

Response sought:

Include a discussion in supporting material of the relationship between the two programmes and provide/propose an integrated work programme.

Where an attribute has two measures (eg median and 95^th percentile) do both apply?

Response sought:

Clarify in the regulation the role of the two measures in determining state with respect to the attribute of concern.

Some attributes have explanatory footnotes – but there needs to be much more of this so that implementation is clear.

Response sought:

Expand appendix 2 to incorporate explanation and/or direction in relation to the measurement and application of all attributes.

Clarity is required with respect to those attributes for which there is no expectation of establishing limits directly (eg., E. coli).

Response sought:

Within the body of the NPS identify those attributes which are amenable to limit setting directly (ie, can be meaningfully expressed as a (potentially) allocable load), and those which might be managed via limits set for other attributes, or through other types of intervention.

Process

Current wording implies that councils can select which attributes (of those provided) that would apply to compulsory values – eg could choose not to apply total N bottom line to lakes that are P limited. Is this intended?

Response sought:

Reword Policy CA1ciA to make clear what “identifying…the attributes…that are applicable” actually means in terms of regional council discretion.

Relationship between the NPSFM monitoring requirements and forthcoming Environmental Reporting Bill

Commentary:

LGNZ understands that an Environmental Reporting Bill will be introduced early in 2014, and that this Bill will provide a national monitoring framework such that the condition of the nation’s environmental domains (Freshwater is an identified domain) will be consistently reported. It is also understood that there will be an expectation for Regional Councils to collect and provide much of the information to support the water domain monitoring. In the Pressure – State - Response framework, this would be most closely relate to “State” information. We note the recent changes to section 360 (RMA) that allows for the standardisation of information in anticipation of the Environmental Reporting Bill but that there is very little indication of how such a national picture can be developed through the local selection of freshwater objectives that relate to in determinant parts of a region (Freshwater Management Units). The relates to the relationship between section “CB Monitoring Plans” and “CC Accounting for freshwater takes and contaminant loads”.

The monitoring required by the proposed new section “CB Monitoring Plans” is linked specifically to the achievement of freshwater objectives (determined locally) for Freshwater Management Units (Policy CB1). Indeed Policy CB1(b) specifically requires that the sites selected are representative of each Freshwater Management Unit. We note that this is in direct conflict with the requirement to measure for the compulsory attribute of Dissolved Oxygen in rivers below discharges (covered elsewhere in this submission) as it is unlikely that below a discharge would be representative of a wider Freshwater Management Unit.

We note that there are no selection criteria for Freshwater Management Units in the amendments to the NPSFM. This matter is also developed elsewhere, however, without criteria it will be up to individual communities to decide the definition and scale of each unit. This could potentially be at the expense of any subsequent ability to aggregate information to a national level. This has the potential to represent an increased demand on community resources to provide nationally relevant data over and above that deemed appropriate to monitor the achievement of local objectives (policy effectiveness monitoring).

We understand and agree that a Freshwater Management Unit should be an integrated social and hydrologically coherent management entity. However, within such a definition and at a scale determined locally it could be a reach of a river, it could be a series of small shallow lakes, it could be a large deep one and it could be a whole catchment, it could even be a type of river (alpine streams from many catchments). The management unit would logically include the influences upon the waterbody of interest and therefore include the surrounding catchment, but this is not clear. If the information collected to report upon achievement (or not) of community driven objectives is expected to be used following aggregation in a national context, then the criteria for selecting Freshwater Management Units needs to be determined.

The recognition of the importance of long-term trends in monitoring information is strongly supported, as it is only by the repetitive measurement of the same variable using standard protocols that changes in state attributable to pressure or response are able to be discerned from background signals. Changes to this either through the requirement to change location of sites or the need to change protocols to reflect national consistency and therefore allow aggregation of data potentially work against this aim.

The establishment of an accounting system in proposed section “CC Accounting for freshwater takes and contaminant loads” relates specifically to each individual Freshwater Management Unit. It is clear that this is to quantify the inputs (contaminant loads) to and outputs (takes) from a water body that is the subject of a Freshwater Management Unit. This therefore represents the “Pressure” element of the Pressure- State – Response framework. The issue lies in the expectation created by the wording of Objective CC1(c) that freshwater quality and quantity data should be able to be aggregated for regional and national water management and monitoring purposes. This is unlikely without a nationally consistent approach to the identification of what is a Freshwater Management Unit, and protocols for measurement of inputs and outputs.

Response sought:

The monitoring framework for the NPSFM needs to be aligned with the Environmental Reporting Bill. To enable the aggregation of data to the national level, selection criteria and protocols for water management units are required. This will help with consistency across regions.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 January 2014

SUBJECT: NZ Energy Corp Oil Exploration in the Wairoa Area (presentation by Dr Ian Brown)

Reason for Report

1. NZEC Wairoa Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of New Zealand Energy Corp (a Canadian public company listed on the Toronto Venture exchange) has taken an 80% interest in the previously Westech Energy New Zealand operated Petroleum Exploration Permit PEP 38 346.

2. Westech has held exploration permits in this area since 1996 and in the period 1998 – 2007 drilled 12 exploration wells in the area covered by PEP 38 346. Eight of the wells were plugged and abandoned, the remaining four are suspended. Hydrocarbons were encountered in all wells, however the natural gas was insufficient for commercial production.

3. Early last year NZEC carried out seismic reflection surveying in the permit, and has integrated these data with previous geophysical and geological data. The company has identified an exploration target in the organic rich shales that underlie the conventional reservoirs investigated by earlier drilling.

4. NZEC is proposing a programme of further exploration in this permit area to investigate the shales.

5. Dr Ian Brown is the General Manager Development & Corporate Affairs for New Zealand Energy Corp and will be present to explain the proposed exploration programme to Council.

6. At this stage no application for resource consents for the exploration has been received by HBRC, although an application for the activity is expected soon.

Background

The RMA context

7. HBRC is required to assess the effects of resource use activities and ensure that any effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated through appropriate conditions in resource consents.

8. The Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP) assists HBRC to carry out its functions to achieve the purposes of the RMA. The RRMP has a policy and rule framework for assessing resource use activities.

9. HBRC must have regard to the provisions of the RRMP when considering applications for resource consents.

10. This gives the RRMP the force and effect of a regulation under the RMA.

Consent processing

11. When an application is received a full assessment of what consents are required and what notification is appropriate will occur. The RRMP provides direction for this process.

12. As part of the process applicants must provide a detailed and comprehensive assessment of environmental effects.

13. Staff then independently review this with assistance from technical experts from within and outside council.

14. All costs are recoverable during a consent process against the applicant.

Notification

15. The main factor in determining whether public notification is required is the test of whether the effects on the environment of the activity are likely to be more than minor, and whether there are any special circumstances that justify public notification.

16. Special circumstances must be more than:

16.1. where a council has had an indication that people want to make submissions.

16.2. the fact that a large development is proposed.

16.3. the fact that some persons have concerns about a proposal.

17. The notification assessment occurs after an application has been received.

18. At this stage no applications have been received from NZEC, though pre application discussions have occurred.

Consents

19. Examples of the types of consents likely for an activity of this type could be:

19.1. Bore consent – controlled activity

19.2. Discharge to land – discretionary activity

19.3. Discharge to air – permitted activity or discretionary activity

19.4. Discharge of stormwater to land or water – controlled or discretionary activity.

20. By way of explanation the following outlines the activity classification.

20.1. Permitted – it can be carried out without consent provided the conditions in the rule are met.

20.2. Controlled – a resource consent is required, but HBRC must grant the consent if the standards and terms in the rule are met. However, HBRC may impose conditions on the consent relating to matters specified in the rule over which control is reserved.

20.3. Discretionary – a resource consent is required, and the HBRC will decide whether or not to grant the consent. Whether or not to grant the consent will depend on how consistent the proposed activity is with provisions of the RMA and the objectives and policies in the RRMP.

Decision Making Process

21. 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 Council receives the “NZ Energy Corp Oil Exploration in the Wairoa Area” report.

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 29 January 2014

SUBJECT: Monthy Work Plan Looking Forward Through February 2014

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities coming up over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management Rivers and Streams Upper Makara Scheme Open Spaces Forestry Coastal	- Focus on Papanui catchment as a pilot for implementation of Plan Change 6. - Application to Hill Country Erosion fund successful for continuation of hill country erosion work in Wairoa district and initial work in Tukituki catchment successful. Project implementation to be undertaken early January. - Repairs to flood damage from 29 November 2013 storm event on the Upper Tukituki Scheme Rivers is being progressed. A report will be provided to the February E&S Committee. - Construction work to repair the Makara No 1 Dam will commence January 2014. - The development of individual management plans for Pekapeka, Tutira and Pakowhai Regional Parks initiated with objective of completing to draft stage for consultation by 30 June 2014. - A review of Council’s forestry portfolio is being undertaken and will be reported back to Council early in 2014. - A review of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan has been commenced. The review process will include consultation with a number of stakeholders. Once the consultation process has been completed it will be brought to Council for consideration and adoption. - Harvesting of Stands 2.01 and 2.02 in the Reserve will commence January. Harvesting is expected to take approx 4 months. - Komar report to be completed. Draft strategy for coast between Clifton and Tangoio being developed. These will be brought to Council before 30 June 2014.
Corporate Services		- Financial reporting for seven months to 31 January 2014 to be considered by Council at its meeting on 26 February 2014.
External Relations/ CE’s office	Communications Strategic Alliances CE’s Office	- Work continuing on drafting of targeted newsletters: Our Place, Our Place minis for CHB, Napier, Hastings and Wairoa - Continue engagement with Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) on draft Regional Planning Committee Bill - In discussion with OTS, Mana Ahuriri and other parties on proposal for future management of Ahuriri Estuary - Prepare submission to Local Government Commission Draft Proposal on Local Government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay - Drafting of policy for Appointment and Remuneration of Directors - Oversight of special consultative procedure for RWSS investment decision
Resource Management	Client Services Compliance	- Contract management process review for Resource Management Group - Preliminary scoping for data systems integration - Science charging process review - Heatsmart data migration to Sharepoint/Herbi - Develop with HBDHB a clean heat /insulation programme targeting low decile and rental properties to improve health status - A review of the current cost recovery model is underway. The same model has been operative for over 8 years yet the makeup of the work undertaken by the Compliance team has changed substantially. The new model needs to reflect the work currently done and taking into account future requirements. - Working with Twyford Irrigators and internally will other parts of Council to implement an allocated water sharing model to enable growers to irrigate on a communal basis, sharing their consented water allocations on a rostered basis to help avoid overuse in time of impending water take bans, that may reduce water levels any cause early bans that might be avoidable.
Resource Management continued	Consents Science	- Ongoing consent processing - HDC Wastewater consent – further prehearing meeting to be held in New Year then may or may not require hearing. - Tyreless Co Ltd (tyre pyrolysis plant) discharge to air consent application at Awatoto subject to submissions and to proceed to hearing. - NCC application for coastal protection structure at Whakarire on hold but likely to proceed to a hearing. - Poukawa group of consents on hold while monitoring is identified and a Catchment Management Strategy is considered which may avoid the need for hearing. - Science investigations for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri management zone continue - Technical Advisory Group formed for the proposed development of a coupled surface-groundwater model with letters of invitation and contracts being processed - Conduct of fieldwork associated with Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri management zone plan change continues – surface water quality, estuarine water quality and spring-fed streams. - Training to guide modification of existing database software platforms and to ensure improved use of existing software programmed for February 2014. - The Hydrometric Network is currently being reviewed. The review includes the potential addition of any NIWA sites and the resulting resourcing required to operate and archive the data according to relevant performance standards - Workstreams associated with the Mohaka Plan Change implementation continue. - Workstreams associated with the Tukituki Plan Change implementation continue, with emphasis on phosphorus mobilisation. - Routine seasonal monitoring programmes continue, including recreational water quality monitoring, with progress on summer-focused ecological, groundwater and hydrological monitoring progressing well. - Preparation of “Mohaka River catchment characterisation report” continues. Delivery of first draft subject to delays because of conflicting work demands. Land Science - Sediment production and prevention modelling of Tukituki catchment. - Regional Soil Quality Monitoring programme looking at cropping land.. - Phosphorus mapping (P matrix) of Papanui catchment.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	- Environment Court likely to issue directions on next steps for dealing with appeals on Change 5. - Board of Inquiry hearing on ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ completed. Draft decision likely around March. - Next TANK Group meeting likely to be April 2014. TANK Report drafted late 2013 will be presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 19 February. - Taharua/Mohaka stakeholder discussions continuing in parallel to science investigations. Includes hui with iwi representatives. Update report to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 19 February. - Statutory advocacy project involving reviews of, and potential submissions on: 1. Proposed Hastings District Plan (close 14 Feb) 2. Proposed Change 10 to Napier District Plan (close 14 Feb 2014). - Further report to Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting on 12 March regarding further information on development of a policy for oil and gas exploration in HB.
Strategic Development	Transport	- The second consultation stage of the New Zealand Transport Agency Funding Assistant Rate (FAR) is being carried out and will be completed March 2014.
Civil Defence & Emergency Management	HB CDEM Group Draft Group Plan	- Submissions closed on 13 Dec 2013 with eight being received. These will be heard at the next Joint Committee Meeting on 14 March 2014. The outcome of that meeting will be to resolve a final draft plan which will then be sent to the Minister of Civil Defence for her comments.

Decision Making Process

2. 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 required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through February 2014 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Discussion document can be viewed online at:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/water/freshwater/nps-freshwater-management-amendment-proposals.html

[2] Much of this report’s content regarding a summary of the discussion document’s key amendments has been sourced from an article by several Partners at Simpson Grierson lawyers available here: http://www.simpsongrierson.com/environment-rma-freshwater-reform/

[3] although note there are no specific “quantity” bottom lines”

[4] Amendments imply that this is staged (policy CC1a) – but seek confirmation

[5] And note broad issues RCs currently have with application of aspects of the SFRG

[6] This doesn’t make sense! – standard sampling = concentration

Request Status	Received	Response Due	Request ID	Requested By	Request Summary	Response
Completed	10/01/2014	13/02/2014	OIR-14-002	Rob Carr	All correspondence from any NZ territorial or regional authority to the chief executive or acting chief executive of Hawkes Bay Regional Council and any replies to such correspondence between 14 July 2013 and 14th October 2013	Double up of OIR-13-082 info provided in November 2013
Completed	1/01/2014	16/02/2014	OIR-14-001	Marty Sharpe - Dom post	All correspondence and information the council holds related to Chevron	Info withheld on grounds of commercial position
Active	18/12/2013	13/02/2014	OIR-13-100	Rob Carr	Two reports from February 2013 and May 2013 mentioned in the GNS letter dated 28 February 2013

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
HBRIC Ltd Staff Remuneration Request	7(2)(a) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Independent Assessment of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme for Council	7(2)(i) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

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