Agenda of Regional Planning Committee

Meeting of the Regional Planning Committee

Date: Wednesday 21 September 2016

Time: 10.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Napier City Council

Hastings Street

NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 3 August 2016

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee held on 3 August 2016

5. Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda 5

6. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Planning Committee Meetings 7

Decision Items

7. Regional Planning Committee Activity Annual Report 2015-16 for Adoption 11

8. Mohaka Catchment Characterisation Report: A Physical Characterisation of the Mohaka Catchment 29

9. Mohaka Plan Change Work Programme 33

10. Weekly Meter Reading for Water Takes from November 2016 45

Information or Performance Monitoring

11. Northern Hawkes Bay Land Management Issues 49

12. 2009-14 Assessment of State and Trends in Groundwater Quality of Hawke's Bay Region 53

13. Spatial Oxygen-Flow Models for Streams of the Heretaunga Plains 57

14. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Land Science Strategy 2016: A New View of the Land 59

15. National Policy Statment for Freshwater Managment - Progressive Implementation Programme Annual Report 2015-16 63

16. Translating Mana Whenua Values to Attributes for the Ngaruroro Awa 69

17. September 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update 71

18. August-September 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update 75

19. Minor Items Not on the Agenda 83

1. Free 2-hour on-road parking is available on Vautier Street adjacent to the HBRC Building & on Raffles Street.

2. There is free all day parking further afield – on Munroe Street or Hastings Street by Briscoes.

3. There are limited parking spaces (3) for visitors in the HBRC car park – entry off Vautier Street – it would be appropriate that the “visitors” parks be available for the members travelling distances from Wairoa and CHB.

4. If you do pay for parking elsewhere, please provide your receipt to the Receptionist for reimbursement – or include with your expenses claim for the meeting.

NB: Any carparks that have yellow markings are NOT to be parked in please.

Regional Planning Committee Members

Name	Represents
Karauna Brown	Ngati Hineuru Iwi Inc
Nicky Kirikiri	Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
Matiu Heperi Northcroft	Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
Peter Paku	He Toa Takitini
Rangi Spooner	Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
Tania Hopmans	Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust
Toro Waaka	Ngati Pahauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
Roger Maaka	He Toa Takitini
Allen Smith	Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
Pare Hill	Te Uru Taumatua – Ngai Tuhoe
Alan Dick	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Christine Scott	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Dave Pipe	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Debbie Hewitt	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Chairman Fenton Wilson	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Peter Beaven	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rex Graham	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Rick Barker	Hawkes Bay Regional Council
Tom Belford	Hawkes Bay Regional Council

Total number of members = 19

Quorum and Voting Entitlements Under the Current Terms of Reference

Quorum (clause (i))

The Quorum for the Regional Planning Committee is 75% of the members of the Committee

At the present time, the quorum is 14 members.

Voting Entitlement (clause (j))

Best endeavours will be made to achieve decisions on a consensus basis, or failing consensus, the agreement of 80% of the Committee members in attendance will be required. Where voting is required all members of the Committee have full speaking rights and voting entitlements.

Number of Committee members present Number required for 80% support

19 15

18 15

17 14

16 13

15 12

14 11

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Regional Planning Committee Activity Annual Report 2015-16 for Adoption

Reason for Report

1. The “Regional Planning Committee – Annual Report for the 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016 period” provides a summary record of the work undertaken and decisions made by the Regional Planning Committee over the past financial year.

2. This version of the report incorporates previous feedback from Committee members and is ready for publication subject to adoption by the Committee. An earlier draft version of the annual report, plus the proposal for digital video format, was presented to the Committee in August.

3. Following the Committee’s meeting in August, a new approach with this year’s Annual Activity Report has been taken which focussed on a multimedia production to be made available for public viewing on YouTube, LinkedIn and Instagram. The finalised production is available to view using the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEP1Q-ICgJg

4. The production will also be available to view at the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2016 for final approval.

Decision Making Process

5. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

5.4. 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 and notes the “Regional Planning Committee Annual Report for 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016 and accompanying multimedia production”

2. adopts the “Regional Planning Committee Annual Report for 1 July 2015 – 30 June 2016” and accompanying multimedia production for public release and distribution.

Authored by:

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner Maori Policy Advisor

Approved by:

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

RPC Annual Report 2015 - 2016

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Mohaka Catchment Characterisation Report: A Physical Characterisation of the Mohaka Catchment

Reason for Report

1. The report “A Physical Characterisation of the Mohaka Catchment” has been prepared to provide an overview of the Regional Council’s scientific understanding of the natural resources of the Mohaka Catchment and its river system.

2. The report will inform the development of a proposed plan change to the Hawke’s Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP), addressing the Mohaka Catchment.

3. This report will be a resource for stakeholders in the Mohaka catchment and other interested parties who may wish to participate in the Mohaka Catchment Plan Change process. Hard copies have been provided to members of the Regional Planning Committee only, and will be available to members of the public upon request once it has been finalised and approved for publication.

Background

4. This characterisation report draws on Council’s state of environment monitoring, an intensive Taharua-Upper Mohaka investigations programme ongoing since 2006, and recent wider Mohaka investigations. It aims to highlight key trends and gives a “snapshot” of current state and risks. It should assist discussion of Mohaka issues, policy needs and provide a baseline for plan effectiveness monitoring, however it does not claim to be definitive and knowledge gaps and weaknesses are stated where known. Ongoing science monitoring and investigations will continue to clarify the picture over time.

5. Nitrogen loss from land in the Taharua sub-catchment, particularly from 3 large dairy farms, has degraded the quality of the Taharua and upper Mohaka rivers in recent years. The Taharua River and the upper Mohaka River have been the focus of detailed science investigations since 2006, triggered by monthly Taharua water quality monitoring since 1999.

Executive Summary and Key Findings

6. The Mohaka Catchment is one of the 7 major water management zones in the Hawke’s Bay Region. This report is intended to describe the current environmental state and condition of the catchment through an investigation of different aspects of its environment. The report is divided into six chapters covering:

6.1. Climate

6.2. Hydrology

6.3. Land

6.4. Groundwater and geology

6.5. Terrestrial ecology and

6.6. Wetlands.

Climate

7. The Mohaka Catchment tends to be wetter and colder than the regional average, and snow on higher parts of the catchment is not uncommon during winter. Rainfall over at least the last 30 years does not appear to have exhibited any particular trends that are strong or consistent across the catchment, except perhaps that easterly storms have increased in frequency or intensity.

8. Based on warm air temperatures alone, eastern areas of the catchment could provide the minimum number of Growing Degree Days (GDDs) required for crops such as grapes and kiwifruit. Gusty north westerly winds feature in the catchment as they do elsewhere in the region and assist with drying out the catchment during the spring and summer period, so that a soil moisture deficit typically exists for up to 60 days in eastern parts of the catchment where PET exceeds rainfall by up to 400 mm.

9. Over the next 50 years, climate change is predicted to result in a marginal increase in annual rainfall over the catchment, based on the median value of an ensemble of climate models, and a more marked increase in the occurrence of heavy rainfall events and droughts. Predicted decreases in rain during spring, together with rising temperatures, increase the need for irrigation by median values of 15 to 25 mm during the growing season.

10. The variations in rainfall predictions between individual climate models are large and the outcomes less certain than the predicted rise in air temperature, which is expected to be 1-2°C by 2065. This is expected to result in higher water temperatures throughout the catchment.

11. The anticipated warming, and more specifically the associated increase in GDDs, may mean that growing crops such as grapes and kiwifruit becomes easier or more feasible over a broader area of the catchment, provided other conditions are suitable. The Mohaka Catchment is unlikely to change from a temperate to a sub-tropical climate within the next 50 years.

Hydrology

12. River flow summary statistics for sites located within the Mohaka River Catchment show the variations in flow that occur within the Mohaka River and its tributaries. River flows increase downstream through the Mohaka River. The Taharua Stream contributes a large proportion of the flow in the upper Mohaka River during a wide range of flow conditions. Taharua Stream flows are more stable, with a higher baseflow component in comparison to flows at most sites on the Mohaka River and its other tributaries. Mean monthly river flows in the catchment are lowest during February and March.

13. Mean annual flows deviate from long-term average annual river flows at the Mohaka River at Raupunga site more prior to 1980, than subsequently. This relates to long-term climate variability, particularly the positive and negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Analyses of annual low flows and annual maximum flows showed no apparent trends.

14. An assessment of consent information and river flows indicates that the current and historical consented water abstraction demand in the catchment is low and that the total potential abstraction effects on river flows are minor, even at low flows.

15. Concurrent gauging data for the Taharua Stream Catchment show flow in the Taharua Stream increases downstream through the catchmentas surface water catchment area increases. Flow data indicates that the interaction between surface water and groundwater is reasonably consistent throughout the surface water catchment.

Land

16. Mohaka Catchment land is generally very healthy. Most of the catchment is in native bush, with the next biggest land use being commercial forestry. There is scope for land use intensification in the catchment, but large scale intensification is unlikely due to the high relief and difficulty of access to land in the catchment. It is possible that commercial forestry could expand within the region. However, forestry is generally considered one of the less intensive land use systems, and expansion of forestry should not detrimentally affect the ecological health of Mohaka Catchment.

17. There are areas of concern in the upper catchment due to nutrient losses from dairy farms that have affected water quality and ecosystem health in both the Taharua River and the upper Mohaka River. This issue is currently being addressed with the help of the farmers concerned and other stake holders.

Geology and Groundwater

18. The geology of the Mohaka catchment consists of mostly soft sedimentary rock in the mid to lower catchment and hard greywacke basement rock, volcanic ignimbrite rock and unconsolidated pumice in the upper catchment. The volcanic ignimbrite rock and unconsolidated pumice are sourced from the Taupo Volcanic Zone.

19. The known groundwater resource in the Mohaka Catchment is mostly confined to the volcanic ignimbrite in the upper catchment of the Taharua valley. The remainder of the Mohaka Catchment is dominated by greywacke rock, which is unlikely to yield a productive groundwater resource. In the lower Mohaka catchment several bores have been drilled into the sedimentary mudstone, sandstone and limestone rock formations, but there is little information known about the groundwater resource in these rock formations.

20. The focus of groundwater investigation has been on the Taharua sub-catchment to support water quality investigations. From available geological bore logs, 3 water bearing formations are found in this sub-catchment:

20.1. Gravels eroded from the nearby greywacke ranges (30-100 m deep)

20.2. Ignimbrite rock aquifer sourced from the eruptions in the northern Taupo Volcanic Zone (also 30-100 m deep)

20.3. A shallow Taupo Pumice aquifer up to 20 m thick.

21. Chemical groundwater quality assessment of shallow investigations bores and private water supply bores in the Taharua Catchment indicates groundwater in both the shallow Taupo pumice aquifer and the deeper Ignimbrite/gravel aquifer ignimbrite can be used for drinking without treatment.

22. The Taupo pumice aquifer is impacted by nitrate-N in the upper Taharua sub catchment and at some sites have high nitrate- N which is half the drinking water Maximum Allowable Value. The most likely sources of the nitrate-N are from intensive dairying in this area. Some sites in the shallow pumice aquifer are also elevated in iron and manganese and do not meet the guideline values. Most sites also comply with the ANZECC irrigation guidelines except for low hardness, which may cause corrosion of metal pipework.

23. Trend analyses of data from shallow bores and Taharua spring indicates that nitrate-N in groundwater has decreased in 2 bores and increased in 1 monitoring bore and phosphorus levels have increased in 1 monitoring bore and the Taharua spring. The sites with both increasing and decreasing trends are located in the vicinity of dairy farms.

24. All 3 monitoring sites are located on a dairy farm that has undergone a significant decrease in stocking rate and associated reduction in nitrogen inputs after a change in farm ownership in 2009^{^[1]}. Further monitoring is needed to confirm the validity of these trends.

25. The groundwater from the deep ignimbrite/gravel aquifer has a mean residence time >90 years, suggesting that the groundwater in the deeper ignimbrite aquifer is very old and has a long residence time indicating that the active groundwater flows does not reach this depth. Groundwater in the shallower Taupo Pumice aquifer groundwater has a mean residence time of less than five years suggests that recharge source is derived from local rainfall recharge sources.

26. The age of Taharua River water increases down the catchment from 1 year at the spring to 8 years at the confluence with the Mohaka River. This steady increase in water age downstream in the Taharua River indicates an increasing contribution of water from longer flow paths from deeper parts of the groundwater system with increasing distance from the head of the recharge area.

27. The presence of significant amounts of old water in the stream is probably related to larger water storage capacity of the volcanic pumice aquifer material. Good hydraulic conductivity of the volcanic material in the Taupo Pumice aquifer is suggested by streams sourced from the greywacke rock hill country running dry at the interception with the volcanic pumice which infills the valley forming the current topographic surface (Morgenstern, 2014).

Biodiversity

28. The pattern of indigenous vegetation habitat loss in the Mohaka Catchment is similar to the regional and national situation, where these habitats have been lost from lowlands and remained on mountain ranges. However, the catchment is characterised by a higher proportion of indigenous forest and scrub than the region.

29. Most of the catchment is part of - or adjacent to - key public and privately-owned conservation areas, where conservation efforts have been made. The catchment is also home to 2 of the few remnants of frost flats left in New Zealand. Although there is no quantitative framework, the Mohaka Catchment has high values of terrestrial biodiversity.

Wetlands

30. The catchment has lost most of its wetlands. The condition of remaining wetlands requires targeted investigation and investigation of why it has been lost. There is very low representation of wetlands in existing protected areas. This, and the degree of loss, leaves wetlands as one of the most acutely threatened ecosystems in the Mohaka Catchment.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “Mohaka Catchment Characterisation Report: A Physical Characterisation of the Mohaka Catchment”.

Authored by:

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist /
Team Leader - Land

Dr Kathleen Kozyniak

Principal Scientist Climate & Air

Keiko Hashiba

Terrestrial Ecologist

Dougall Gordon

Principal Scientist, Groundwater

Rob Waldron

Senior Resource Analyst

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Mohaka Plan Change Work Programme

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to advise the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) of the work programme for the Mohaka Plan Change project to give effect to the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2014 in the Mohaka catchment. This includes the attached project plan, seeking to deliver the draft plan change by December 2017. This coincides with the completion of the Mohaka Catchment Environmental Characterisation Report, (refer separate agenda item for RPC’s 21 September meeting).

2. The Environmental Characterisation Report provides the additional prerequisite science and information to re-engage with the previously convened Mohaka Stakeholder Reference Group to progress the plan change. This complements an earlier notable report presented to the RPC in 2015 - the Mohaka River Catchment – State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology October 2015.

3. Whilst timeframes and resourcing will remain challenging, staff are committed to completing the draft plan change by December 2017 in line with Long Term Plan (LTP) timeframes.

Financial and Resource Implications

4. Delivery of the draft Plan Change is provided for and budgeted in the LTP and Annual Plan. Costs associated with forthcoming engagement and drafting are funded from budgets for Project 192 Strategy and Planning. The most significant costs associated with engagement were invested over the previous five year collaborative Taharua Stakeholder Group process.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

5.5. Options that have been considered include the requirements placed on engagement with the Mohaka Reference Group and Mohaka iwi/hapu to allow a sufficiently robust plan change to be prepared within timeframes. It is considered that continued documentation of the level of engagement provides transparency and helps manage expectations for all interested parties/stakeholders as drafting of the plan change moves to completion. No option was evaluated associated with extending the December 2017 timeframe.

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

5.7. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives the “Mohaka Plan Change Work Programme” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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.

2.2. Approves the Mohaka Project Plan, subject to any adjustments required and agreed by the Regional Planning Committee, to guide delivery of the Draft Plan Change for the Mohaka catchment.

Authored by:

Desiree Cull

Programme Leader

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Final Mohaka Project Plan

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Weekly Meter Reading for Water Takes from November 2016

Reason for Report

1. This is an update on the implementation of the Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 (MRWT Regulations). There is a final phase in for metering smaller takes that is required in November. Council has been advising affected resource consent holders of this over the past year. Discretion may be applied as to whether daily or weekly recording is required.

2. A Council decision is required to determine whether takes of 5 L/s to 9.99 L/s should be able to report on a weekly basis where they are in a sensitive groundwater area.

Background

3. The MRWT Regulations phased in the requirements for water meters, with rates of take > 20 L/s required to have water meters by November 2012, and takes with a rate between 10 L/s and 19.99 L/s requiring a meter by November 2014.

4. The MRWT regulations require consented water takes with an authorised rate of take of between 5 L/s and 9.99 L/s to be metered prior to 10 November 2016.

5. There is no discretion under the MRWT Regulations as to whether takes greater than 5 L/s are metered or not.

6. The MRWT Regulations require daily meter readings unless an approval to allow for weekly readings is given by the Council under Regulation 9.

7. Council has delegated this discretion to Council Officers.

8. Council’s approach (Council Decision 24 November 2010) has been to only give approval for weekly readings to be taken where the take is not a surface water take or stream depleting groundwater take, and where the groundwater take is not located within a ‘sensitive groundwater area’.

9. ‘Sensitive groundwater areas’ have been defined internally by staff. They include areas identified by the RRMP Schedule VI as being ‘Water Short’ plus other areas where there are known issues of well interference or stream depletion.

10. There are 220 groundwater consents with a rate of take of 5 L/s to 9.99 L/s; 40 are already required to be metered (18%), and the remaining 180 consents will be required to install meters prior to 10 November 2016.

11. Of the 180 groundwater takes that will need to install meters under the MRWT Regulations this year, about half (90) of them are located within a ‘sensitive groundwater area’ (SGA), and under the Council’s past approach would have been required to take daily readings from 10 November 2016. In practice, this requirement often results in the need for people to install telemetry systems.

12. Of the 86 groundwater consents within the SGA, most are orchards (54%), cropping blocks (16%) and vineyards (11%). The average size of the blocks is approximately 7 ha.

13. Should these 86 takes be required to take daily readings, or is approval for weekly readings appropriate?

14. In considering this question the following factors have been taken into account:

14.1. A requirement for daily water use readings may practically result in the need for people to install telemetry. There is a significant cost associated with installation and operation of a telemetry system.

14.2. The blocks are relatively small, and are less likely to be run by larger scale operators with existing telemetry systems.

14.3. The TANK plan change is likely to contain policy provisions which set out metering and telemetry requirements. The s32 report for the TANK plan change will consider the costs and benefits of any approach that is put forward.

14.4. It is unlikely that daily water use data for these relatively small takes will be used to support groundwater science (e.g. the groundwater model). It is more likely that aggregated water use data at a monthly or annual time period will be used. This data would still be available from these takes even if they read their meters at a weekly frequency.

15. The identified options are to:

15.1. Allow an interim exemption to all groundwater takes with rates of take between 5 L/s to 9.99 L/s until 10 November 2019, or some other defined date.

15.2. Continue with the past approach and not provide any exemptions to those takes within sensitive groundwater areas.

16. While option 2 has the benefit of being consistent with the past approach, it will result in more onerous requirements for small scale consent holders. It is recommended that option 1 be taken. TANK may determine that daily meter readings and/or telemetry is warranted across the plains, in which case the approval to take weekly readings under Regulation 9 will not be extended. Taking this option will ensure that the metering requirement is consistent with the provisions of the TANK plan change, which will be developed with full regard to potential costs and benefits, and in light of any input from key stakeholders.

17. It is noted that the approvals for weekly readings may not be given or may be subsequently revoked in any case where there is doubt over the actual pump rate and volume taken, where there is lack of compliance with the return of water meter data, where transfer and sharing of water permits occurs, or where portable meter systems are being used on portable pumps across multiple properties.

Financial and Resource Implications

18. There are no financial implications to the Council. The cost on consent holders of more frequent reading of meters and potentially telemetry will not be imposed on small scale groundwater takes where more frequent reporting is not required.

Decision Making Process

19. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

19.4. The persons affected by this decision are existing and future consent holders with water take permits for small rates and quantities of water.

19.5. Options that have been considered include require daily reporting or allow weekly reporting where appropriate.

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

19.7. 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

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Weekly Meter Reading for Water Takes from November 2016” report.

2. The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

2.1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2.2. Agrees to Council staff exercising discretion to allow consent holders of groundwater water takes that are greater than 5 L/s and less than 9.99 L/s to measure and report their usage weekly where this is appropriate.

Authored by:

Paul Barrett

Senior Consents Planner

Approved by:

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Northern Hawkes Bay Land Management Issues

Reason for Report

1. This paper updates the Regional Planning Committee on a report by Dr Sean Weaver commissioned by the Council and the Ministry for Primary Industries which explores options for addressing both acute and chronic effects of land use in Northern Hawke’s Bay. Further advice on a package of actions proposed by the Ministry and council staff will be brought back to the Committee once funding decisions have been made by ministers.

Background

2. Clearance of indigenous forest for pastoral lands in Northern Hawke’s Bay has long been a source of soil erosion with associated land use productivity, flood management, water quality and coastal environmental impacts. The topography and geomorphology in Northern Hawke’s Bay induces erosion of an exceptionally high intensity by both national and international standards. Since the 1941 Soil Conservation and River Controls Act, central government through the NZ Forest Service, catchment boards and more latterly the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, have sought to address this erosion through the establishment of erosion control planting and plantation forestry on particularly erosion prone land. Tax incentives during the 1990s spurred further forest establishment.

3. Many of these plantation forests are now being harvested with considerably more harvest activity yet to come. These harvests are putting the spotlight on the impacts of harvest practices – particularly sediment and forest slash - on waterways, coastal environments and infrastructure, and on the Council’s ability to regulate these activities to the satisfaction of the community. Harvests are also posing questions for industry and for the Council on where replanting should occur or where permanent retirement from forestry may be required to meet water quality and soil conservation objectives over the longer-term. The predicted increased frequency of extreme climatic events may well accentuate or accelerate some of these challenges.

4. Freshwater reform will pose particular challenges for the Council and the local community in Northern Hawke’s Bay given that historic land use decisions are having a significant impact on water quality and that land use and land management practice will have to undergo major changes if high levels of ecological health are to be achieved. In some cases forestry will be a necessary alternative to current pastoral land-use and will continue to be an important component in the district’s economy.

5. Issues arising from harvest practices are exacerbating community concerns toward forestry, which risk undermining the social license for the industry to operate and the ability for the Council to promote forestry as part of the tool-box of solutions for erosion prone land. In addition to this community sentiment there are also other social and economic barriers to land use change that need to be carefully considered.

Comment

6. Following the Council Chairman’s recent meeting with Ministers Guy and Tolley regarding the effects of land management activities on waterways in the Wairoa District, Dr Sean Weaver was commissioned by the Council and Ministry for Primary Industries to provide options for enhancing existing initiatives to improve land and water outcomes.

7. The attached Weaver Report has highlighted that the existing tool-box of interventions, from which the Council and central government can currently draw upon, are insufficient to support the level of land use management and change for both forestry and pastoral farming necessary to deliver high levels of water quality. Further tools, including land and water science, decision support advice, and financial incentives for land management and land use change will be required. This will require resources that are currently not available or provided for in the Council’s Long Term Plan, and mechanisms available from central government fall short of what is required as well.

8. A policy decision taken by central government in the early 1990s saw the East Coast Forestry Project, which provided financial assistance for converting erosion vulnerable land to forestry following Cyclone Bola, confined to the Gisborne District. This was an arbitrary decision that did not account for the fact that land use issues in Northern Hawke’s Bay are the same as the Gisborne District. In light of persistent underspends in the East Coast Forestry Project the Ministry for Primary Industries, which administers the Project, is currently providing advice to ministers on whether changes to the scheme are warranted to address land use challenges in Northern Hawke’s Bay. These changes may make funding available for a programme of work to address land management issues in this part of the region, including new science, decision support and incentives, and potentially piloting initiatives for scaling up regionally and potentially nationally.

9. At the time of writing we are awaiting a decision from ministers on resourcing available to develop a proposed programme of work. This programme is still very much under development, drawing from the Weaver Report. Details of the proposed programme of work will come to the Regional Planning Committee once MPI’s resources have been secured and local engagement has been undertaken on design. This programme could help deliver the Regional Economic Development Strategy actions that relate to land use productivity, freshwater reform and climate change resilience.

Financial and Resource Implications

10. The Council already has two land management advisors based in Northern Hawkes Bay who work with land owners to address land management practices. Should funding be made available then the Council will look to deploy these staff, as well as science staff, in a complementary manner to support a programme of work to the extent that is possible. However, capacity to redeploy in this manner is limited given other pressures and longer-term the Council will need to consider the full resource implications of implementing freshwater reform and NPSFM implementation in North Hawkes Bay. It is proposed that advice on these implications will be provided as part of the next iteration of the Long Term Plan in the 2017/18 year.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

1. That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Northern Hawkes Bay Land Management Issues” report.

1.1. Notes the report from Dr Sean Weaver on land use issues in Northern Hawkes Bay.

Authored by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Approved by:

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Northern Hawke's Bay Sustainable Land Management Strategy Options Paper

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: 2009-14 Assessment of State and Trends in Groundwater Quality of Hawke's Bay Region

Reason for Report

1. Under Section 35(2)(a) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) local authorities are required to monitor the state of the whole or any part of the environment to the extent that is appropriate to enable the local authority to effectively carry out its functions under the RMA. State of the Environment (SoE) monitoring and reporting is a key statutory function of the Regional Council.

2. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) undertakes routine groundwater quality data collection at monitoring sites in the main productive aquifers in the region. Groundwater quality monitoring is used to assist with policy development and policy effectiveness and resource management consent decision making.

3. This technical report is provided as underlying information that informs the five yearly State of the Environment: Trends report. Hard copies have been provided to RPC members only, and will be made available to the public upon request.

Background

4. Groundwater is used and relied upon as a source of drinking water, industrial, irrigation and stock water supplies across the Hawke’s Bay region. Groundwater discharge to surface water plays an important role in the maintenance of surface stream flow, so groundwater quality also has a consequential impact on surface water quality. Intensification of land use poses a potential threat to the sustainability of the groundwater resource.

5. This report summarises the state and trends in groundwater quality from 40 monitoring sites across the region, including the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha Plains, Wairoa, Poukawa and Mahia aquifer systems. State is assessed over the 5 years of data collected between January 2009 and 31^st December 2013 and trends are assessed using the long term data set from 1 January 1999 to 31^st December 2013.

6. Key water quality parameters are used to assess the state and trends in groundwater quality and are assessed relative to New Zealand Drinking Water Standards (DWSNZ) and Australian and New Zealand (ANZECC) irrigation guidelines, as outlined in the HBRC’s Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

7. There are both maximum acceptable values (MAV) related to human health and also guideline values in the DWSNZ. The ANZECC irrigation guidelines trigger values key parameters in the guidelines. The parameters used in state and trend assessments include; the microbiological indicator E. coli, and chemical parameters including ammoniacal nitrogen, nitrite- nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, manganese, iron, sulphate, sodium, chloride total hardness, total dissolved solids, and pH.

Key Findings

8. Hawke’s Bay aquifer systems are generally suitable for drinking water supply, except where they are affected by naturally occurring iron, manganese and hardness, which are water quality parameters that affect aesthetics. Manganese also has health MAV and 78% of sites in the region comply with this limit. Iron, manganese and hardness are particularly elevated in the Poukawa (limestone), Wairoa and Mahia aquifer systems.

9. Nitrate levels are typically low, and better than drinking water standards. In the last 5-years 88% of sites monitored were between 90% and 100% compliant with the microbiological indicator E. coli.

10. Elevated E. coli is sometimes found in monitoring bores less than 10 m deep in unconfined aquifers. Shallow unconfined aquifers are susceptible to contamination by pathogens because they have limited ability to filter out contamination. Bores less than 10 m deep are considered unsecure, according to the DWSNZ, and use of water for drinking would require treatment. The remaining sites in the region are over 10 m deep and were generally compliant with the DWSNZ.

11. 17.5% of Hawke’s Bay sites had increasing (worsening) trend in nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N). The largest proportion of increasing trends occurs in the Ruataniwha aquifer system, followed by the Mahia aquifer system and the Heretaunga aquifer system. No trends in nitrate-N were found in the Poukawa and Wairoa aquifer systems. The Ruataniwha and Heretaunga plains have more intensive horticulture and agriculture, while Mahia has lower intensity pastoral farming. However, the Mahia aquifer is likely to be more susceptible to contamination since the aquifer is unconfined sand and alluvium.

12. The figure of 17.5% worsening sites in Hawke’s Bay compares with a national trend of 20% increasing nitrate-N for sites across New Zealand (Daughney et.al 2008).

13. Most sites in the region comply with the irrigation guidelines for quality contained within the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water, except for iron and manganese, which is elevated in most aquifers in the region. No sites in the Poukawa and Wairoa aquifers complied with iron, manganese or hardness guidelines. 87% of sites in the Heretaunga Plains aquifer comply with manganese and iron guidelines. Sites that did not comply were generally in deeper parts of the aquifer system. In the Ruataniwha basin 50% of sites had hardness levels that were better than the hardness corrosion limit.

14. 80% of sites in the region have a decreasing trend in manganese and 40% of sites have decreases in iron. These 2 parameters are naturally occurring and are enriched in deeper parts of aquifer systems because they reside there for long periods of time. It is difficult to identify the factors controlling the worsening trend. It could be related to changes in recharge that may be affecting water-rock interactions.

15. 72.5% of sites had no trend in phosphorus. However, 27.5% of sites had an increase in phosphorus. The highest proportion of sites with increases in phosphorus were located in the Mahia and Heretaunga aquifer systems, followed by the Ruataniwha aquifer system. These increasing trends may be related to land-use activities over the aquifer systems.

16. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is one of 14 regions that participates in the national pesticide monitoring programme. No pesticides were detected in groundwater for either the 2010 and 2014 regional pesticide survey.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “2009-14 Assessment of State and Trends in Groundwater Quality of Hawke's Bay Region” report.

Authored by:

Dougall Gordon

Principal Scientist, Groundwater

Approved by:

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Spatial Oxygen-Flow Models for Streams of the Heretaunga Plains

Reason for Report

1. This report investigates the relationship between stream flow and dissolved oxygen available for fish in Heretaunga Plains streams. This information is intended to inform limit selection (e.g. minimum flow sites) by the TANK (Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro, Karamu) Stakeholder Group, which was assembled for the Greater Heretaunga Plan Change.

Background

2. Fish and other stream life depends on having sufficient freshwater to survive. Reduced flow can reduce oxygen in low-gradient streams, like the Karamu, that support high abundances of aquatic plants.

3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council manages allocation of water, to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our streams. For example, there is a minimum flow of 300 L/s set for the Raupare Stream, which affords a level of protection to whitebait and eels inhabiting the stream. When stream flow drops below 300 L/s, some irrigators are required to stop water use until higher flows return. That minimum flow will be revisited during the proposed Greater Heretaunga Plan Change.

4. A previous report provided recommendations on minimum flows for the Raupare Stream, plus 2 other sites. This most recent report expands on that, by identifying streams on the Heretaunga Plains that are more susceptible to low oxygen. This is intended to inform decisions on where minimum flow sites might be located. This report will not evaluate the magnitude of minimum flows at particular sites.

5. Along with identifying streams that are more susceptible to low oxygen, the role of aquatic plants was also assessed. The investigation also evaluated the positive role that riparian shading has on flow requirements for oxygen supply.

6. The process of selecting minimum flows will probably require the identification of oxygen limits for streams. This report presents new information that has implications for those oxygen limits, including the physical constraints on oxygen in low-gradient streams and the measured response of fish to oxygen. Oxygen limits are discussed in this report to better inform that limit-setting process.

Discussion

7. Observations and modelling both indicate that oxygen is a critical issue to consider when managing flows of these streams to safeguard their life-supporting capacity.

8. The modeling indicates that, for the same flow, less oxygen is produced in streams with flatter gradients and larger channels.

9. A prioritised list of potential monitoring sites is presented for each sub-catchment on the Heretaunga Plains, which is intended to inform decisions by stakeholders or regulators. Priority was given to sites that better represent the reaches at risk of low oxygen and with the highest water demand. The flexibility of a prioritised list allows sites to be added in future, as water demand increases. That flexibility also allows stakeholders to choose lower priority sites based on other criteria (e.g. higher instream values).

10. Riparian shading that reduces solar access (incident sunlight on the stream) to less than 30% of the November-April maximum is expected to reduce aquatic plant growth and improve oxygen supply to fish.

11. Both flow management and riparian management can be applied to ensure oxygen supply from the water exceeds oxygen demand for fish survival.

12. Alternative oxygen limits are recommended for low-gradient streams, including a daily minimum of 40% oxygen saturation. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management includes a ‘National Bottom Line’ of 50% oxygen. That bottom line is not a statutory limit for minimum flows because it only applies “below point discharges”.

13. The external peer-reviewer of the technical report did not agree with the 40% limit that was proposed. Rather than seek scientific consensus, both limits will be presented to stakeholders as alternative options.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and takes note of the “Spatial Oxygen-Flow Models for Streams of the Heretaunga Plains” report.

Authored by:

Thomas Wilding

Senior Scientist

Approved by:

Dr Jeff Smith

Team Leader/Principal Scientist
Hydrology/Hydrogeology

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Land Science Strategy 2016: A New View of the Land

Reason for Report

1. This report outlines a new Land Science Strategy for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC). The new strategy will guide the Council’s Land Science programme of work through the short to medium term period ahead.

Background

2. In recent years land science has come much more to the fore nationally with an increasing understanding of how land issues are affecting water quality. Central and regional government are placing more emphasis on policies, legislation and directives around the terrestrial environment than ever before creating a more complex environment for Council land science to operate in.

3. The new Land Science Strategy has looked at all of the current national and regional land science initiatives and linked them with HBRC’s work programme. By doing this we can be confident that HBRC’s Land Science programme is not only meeting regional needs but also taking into account national level strategies keeping HBRC’s Land Science programme relevant and robust heading in to the future.

Summary

4. The management of risks, realising opportunities such as increasing land productivity, and meeting reporting obligations within a regional council require timely and effective science input. The purpose of this project is to provide the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) with strategic guidance for Land Science, providing clarity on regional land priorities as well as the research impacts and initiatives needed to deliver on these priorities.

5. The strategic guidance has been designed to ensure that the Land Science Programme:

5.1. has access to the right science to support better land management decision-making

5.2. is equipped with the right science-based tools to monitor progress towards outcomes

5.3. makes the best investment in research activities to support the needs of the region and

5.4. leverages and contributes to wider system efforts, thereby increasing cost-effectiveness.

Approach

6. The guidance is structured to provide clarity on the:

6.1. role of Land Science within HBRC (the who)

6.2. outcomes the Land Science Programme should enable (the why)

6.3. research impacts to be delivered (the what)

6.4. way the Land Science Programme should work (priorities, partnerships and connections – the how).

Results

7. A Strategic Roadmap provides clarity on the role, outcomes, research impacts, and way in which Land Science should be provided. The Roadmap also offers a number of pathways for Land Science to ensure consistency, particularly for the implementation of national policies (e.g. freshwater reforms) and to fulfil national obligations (e.g. under the Environmental Reporting Act) as well as leverage initiatives across the regions and nationally.

8. The rudimentary review, analysis, and ranking of research impacts through an outcome-based framework will ensure Land Science has a clear rationale for investment decision-making, makes intentional choices on priorities, and remains relevant to today's operating environment.

Recommendations

9. Five recommendations are provided to ensure the intent of the project is realised and the Roadmap becomes a resource of enduring relevance and value to the Land Science programme and HBRC more generally. They are:

9.1. The prioritised research impacts and Roadmap are presented widely within the Council and shared with key external collaborators

9.2. Greater effort is made to jointly explore science needs and scope in areas of mutual interest, in particular with Land Management and Water Science

9.3. Immediate action is taken to optimise the opportunities in the external environment

9.4. The Land Science team continues to contribute and participate in relevant activities outlined in the Roadmap to maximise the opportunities for leverage and alignment

9.5. Strategic scans are periodically undertaken to ensure the Roadmap remains relevant to needs and changes in the wider system.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements 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

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Land Science Strategy 2016: A New View of the Land” report.

Authored by:

Dr Barry Lynch

Principal Scientist / Team Leader - Land

Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

HBRC Land Science Strategy 2016

Under Separate Cover

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: National Policy Statment for Freshwater Managment - Progressive Implementation Programme Annual Report 2015-16

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to report on key implementation milestones and activities undertaken by HBRC during the 2014-15 financial year as part of implementing the 2014 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) as set out in the Progressive Implementation Programme.

2. The content of this report will form the basis of the HBRC Annual Report 2015-2016.

Background

3. The first NPSFM came into effect on 1 July 2011, and was then amended in 2014. The NPSFM sets the direction for maintaining and improving water quality and protecting life-supporting capacity of our rivers, lakes, streams and aquifers.

4. The NPSFM directs councils to ensure limits and management objectives are in place for all waterbodies by 2025 and provides guidance of how decision making should be undertaken to update regional policy statements and plans. The NPSFM does not contain specific limits or objectives, which reflects the desire of Government that it is up to each regional community to determine this for themselves.

Annual report back on activities

5. Policy E2 of the NPSFM requires that HBRC report annually on the extent to which the Progressive Implementation Programme has been implemented. That reporting is incorporated into the HBRC’s Annual Report at the completion of each financial year period. In this way, the reporting is deliberately retrospective. Its purpose is not to describe intended actions and activities to implement the NPSFM in the future.

6. A first draft of HBRC’s Annual Report (covering all activities and associated financial reports for the 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 period) was presented to the Regional Council meeting on 31^st August. The Regional Council will consider formally adopting a final 2015-16 Annual Report at its final meeting on 28^th September.

7. This paper summarises some of HBRC’s major policy and plan highlights as part of the NPSFM implementation programme that have occurred during the 2015-2016 year. The table provided at Attachment 1 provides some further detail of these highlights along with several other activities undertaken to implement the NPSFM.

8. Highlights include:

8.1. Progression of a regional plan change for the Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri catchment area (aka the ‘TANK” catchments), with the TANK Stakeholder Group assessing a range of policy options to inform a draft policy change which will include input from the wider public. The project is on track to have a proposed plan change ready for Council adoption in December 2017.

8.2. The November 2015 Regional Planning Committee sign-off of a key technical report outlining the science of ecology and surface water for the Mohaka catchment. The report is significant as it outlines the science pertaining to the surface water and ecology for the catchment, as well as being communicated and shared to external stakeholders.

8.3. Commencement of a significant joint project with Auckland Council and funding from the Ministry for the Environment’s Community Environment Fund aimed at developing methodology for the identification of ‘outstanding freshwater bodies’ in the context of the NPSFM. This project is intended for delivery in August 2016.

8.4. Continued involvement in negotiations with NZ Fish and Game Council and other parties on the definition of ‘wetland’ in Plan Change 5. A wetland ecologist was engaged to map the permanently wet margins of five wetland areas which was intended to inform the RRMP’s ‘wetland’ definition. As a result of ongoing disagreement on the definition, an Environment Court hearing is scheduled for late 2016 on this matter.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management - Progressive Implementation Programme Annual Report 2015-16”, for inclusion in the Council’s 2015-16 Annual Report.

Authored by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

James Palmer

Group Manager Strategic Development

Approved by:

Rina Douglas

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager,
Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Update table for activities 2015-2016 NPSFM

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Subject: Translating Mana Whenua Values to Attributes for the Ngaruroro Awa

Reason for Report

1. To introduce the “Translating Mana Whenua Values to Attributes for the Ngaruroro Awa” presentation from the working group of Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII).

Background

2. The way land and water resources are managed in the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri area is under review. The area encompasses the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments ('TANK'), plus the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system.

3. TANK is taking a community-based decision-making approach to work out how these unique water bodies should be managed. The TANK Group comprises 30+ Hawke's Bay members representing a wide range of interests. This is consistent with many approaches to develop freshwater management plans in New Zealand.

4. There is still much ground to cover before the Group can make well-informed decisions about the form and content of the Plan Change - a wide range of science, cultural and economic information is necessary to assist decisions.

5. As well as making recommendations on values and overall objectives, there are a number of key aspects of the Regional Plan that the TANK Group will recommend to Council. One of these matters under consideration is the use of Mātauranga Māori in monitoring and reporting.

6. Earlier this year NKII were contracted to conduct research which would translate Mana Whenua values to attributes for the Ngaruroro Awa.

7. NKII members of the working group will present the findings of their draft research to the committee meeting on 21 September, having presented to the TANK Group the day before.

8. The final report will be submitted to the next RPC meeting, once it has been approved by the TANK Group.

Decision Making Process

Recommendation

That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the draft findings from the “Translating Mana Whenua Values to Attributes for the Ngaruroro Awa” presentation.

Authored by:

Joyce-Anne Raihania

Senior Planner
Maori Policy Advisor

Approved by:

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

SUBJECT: September 2016 Resource Management Planning Project Update

Reason for Report

1. This report provides a brief outline and update of the Council’s various resource management projects currently underway.

Discussion

2. The projects covered in this report are those involving reviews and/or changes under the Resource Management Act to one or more of the following planning documents:

2.1. the Hawke's Bay Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP)

2.2. the Hawke's Bay Regional Policy Statement (RPS) which is incorporated into the RRMP

2.3. the Hawke's Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP).

3. From time to time, separate reports additional to this one may be presented to the Committee for fuller updates on specific plan change projects.

4. The table in Attachment 1 repeats the relevant parts of the resource management planning work programme from the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

5. Similar periodical reporting will also be presented to the Council as part of the quarterly reporting and end of year Annual Plan reporting requirements.

Decision Making Process

6. 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 and takes note of the ‘September 2016 Resource Management Planning Projects Update’ report.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

Status Report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Regional Planning Committee

Wednesday 21 September 2016

SUBJECT: August-September 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update

Reason for Report

1. This paper reports on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project between 1 August 2016 and 21 September 2016.

2. The Statutory Advocacy project (Project 196) centres on resource management-related proposals upon which the Regional Council has an opportunity to make comments or to lodge a submission. These include, but are not limited to:

2.1. resource consent applications publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.2. district plan reviews or district plan changes released by a territorial authority

2.3. private plan change requests publicly notified by a territorial authority

2.4. notices of requirements for designations in district plans

2.5. non-statutory strategies, structure plans, registrations, etc prepared by territorial authorities, government ministries or other agencies involved in resource management.

3. In all cases, the Regional Council is not the decision-maker, applicant nor proponent. In the Statutory Advocacy project, the Regional Council is purely an agency with an opportunity to make comments or lodge submissions on others’ proposals. The Council’s position in relation to such proposals is informed by the Council’s own Plans, Policies and Strategies, plus its land ownership or asset management interests.

4. The summary plus accompanying map outlines those proposals that the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project is currently actively engaged in.

Decision Making Process

5. 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 August-September 2016 Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Esther-Amy Powell

Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

James Palmer

Group Manager
Strategic Development

Attachment/s

1	Statutory Advocacy Map
2	Statutory Advocacy Update

[1] personal communication with B Powell, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, 2014