Agenda of Environment and Services Committee

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2013

SUBJECT: RMA Reform Bill Submission

Reason for Report

1. The Government has released another bill proposing reforms to the Resource Management Act. Submissions on the Amendment Bill are invited until 28 February 2013. This paper presents a draft submission for consideration by the Committee.

Overview of Bill

2. The Resource Management Reform Bill 2012 was introduced to Parliament on 5 December 2012. The Bill contains an explanatory note describing itself as follows:

The Bill amends the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA), the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. It delivers some fast, discrete improvements to the consenting regime, provides for the delivery of the first combined plan for Auckland, provides further powers to make regulations, and makes technical and operational changes.

These improvements are designed to precede larger-scale resource management reform that will deliver more substantive, system-wide improvements to increase the long-term resilience of the resource management system, including for freshwater management and the planning system more generally.

The objectives of the Bill are to—

• further streamline the resource consent regime:

• streamline the delivery of Auckland’s first combined plan:

• improve the quality of local decision-making:

• improve the workability of the RMA through minor and technical amendments.

The main measures in the Bill—

• introduce a 6-month consent time frame for medium-sized projects, with other related improvements to consent processes, to address the remaining inefficiencies following the 2009 amendments that improved consenting processes for small and large projects:

• require a consent authority to agree to a request for direct referral if regulations are made that establish an investment threshold and if the proposal meets that threshold, unless there are exceptional circumstances:

• make other improvements to the direct referral provisions:

• introduce a one-off streamlined process to assist with delivering the first combined plan for Auckland following the recent governance reforms:

• introduce the ability for regulations to be made that require local authorities to monitor the environment according to specified priorities and methodologies so as to improve the quality of local decision-making:

• clarify the requirements on local authorities for the analysis that underpins plans and policy statements (as well as regulations), including placing greater emphasis on the need for quantitative assessment of costs and benefits and the need to consider regional economic impact and opportunity costs:

• improve decision-making by local authorities to ensure it is based on adequate, relevant, and robust evidence and analysis, and to increase the level of transparency of decision-making:

• clarify and improve the workability of the RMA through a number of technical changes... [relating to emergency provisions for all lifeline utilities, processing of proposals of national significance, clarification of tree protection rules in district plans, and removing boards of inquiry to comply with LGOIMA requirements].

Making a submission

3. Local Government NZ have drafted a submission and circulated it amongst local government resource managers for comment. LGNZ’s draft submission highlights the following components of the Bill to be of significance to the sector:

3.1. the introduction of the regulation making power regarding a duty to gather information, monitor and keep records.

3.2. changes to section 32 evaluations for plan and policy making.

3.3. amendments to timeframes and the way timeframes are calculated.

3.4. special provisions for the hearings process for Auckland’s Unitary Plan.

4. Senior planning staff have drafted a submission (see Attachment 1). That submission has been drafted to complement the submission to be made by LGNZ – not duplicate it. Consequently, the attached submission has been drafted with particular focus only on:

4.1. matters directly relevant to the Council’s own consenting practices

4.2. matters posing significant implications for:

4.2.1. Council’s preparation and review of policy statements and regional plans

4.2.2. Council’s duties to gather information, monitor and keep records.

Decision Making Process

1. 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:

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

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

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

1.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources, but in any event, those persons have the opportunity to lodge their own submissions on the Bill.

1.5. The options available to the Council are to make a submission to Government or Council can choose not to make a submission.

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

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

Recommendations

That the Committee recommends 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, and the ability of others in the community to make separate submissions on the Bill.

2. Considers the attached submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill 2012 and agrees to lodge the submission with any amendments arising at the meeting.

Charlotte Drury

Principal Consents Officer

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager Strategic Development

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View

RMA Reform Bill

RMA Reform Bill

Attachment 1

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council submission to the select committee on

the Resource management Reform Bill

Subject matter	Clause(s) of Bill	Section of Act to be amended	Proposed amendment	Response to proposal
State of the Environment monitoring	7 & 61	35 & 360	Proposed amendments relate to local authorities requirements to gather information, monitor and keep records. Amendments will allow regulations to be made that require local authorities to monitor the environment using specific indicators and certain methodologies. Information gathered must also be reported to the Minister in timeframes specified in the regulations.	Potential changes to requirements for State of the Environment monitoring are considered to be positive changes which would result in greater national consistency in monitoring. National consistency will allow the comparison of monitoring results between regions, and a better understanding of the state of New Zealand’s environment as a whole. As a Regional Council, our monitoring programme currently adopts best practice both in terms of what parameters, how many are monitored and how. There is the potential for the proposed changes to impose additional costs, however without draft regulations to consider, these cannot be quantified. It is noted that there are a number of regional council common interest groups where scientists working in particular fields, such as freshwater ecology, meet regularly to discuss issues. Staff believe it would be beneficial for such established groups to be involved in the drafting of any regulations to ensure that they do utilise the skills of these people, and the resulting regulations are practical and really do reflect best practice.
Records about iwi and hapu	8	35A	Requires that information provided under section 35A has to be provided in accordance with regulations made under the Act	Minor changes proposed to section 35A are unlikely to require any significant changes in Council process.
Reports to local authorities	10	42A	Minor wording change.	Minor changes proposed to section 42A are unlikely to require any significant changes in Council process
Direct referrals to the Environment Court	13-15, 33, 40, 43, 47, 88, 93, 102, 104	87E & 165ZFE 87F 87G 88D 285	Proposed to require a consent authority to refer applications (incl coastal permits) directly to the Environment Court if the value of the investment in the proposal is likely to meet or exceed the threshold amount prescribed by regulations, unless exceptional circumstances exist Requirements of a consent authority if an application is directly referred are clarified. The authority must prepared a report that addresses issues and suggest conditions relating to the application, provide a summary of submissions received and also provide assistance to the Court in relation to their report. Other minor amendments are proposed, including clarification of the requirement for submitters on an application (at a Council level) to give notice to the Court if they wish to be heard on the application. The timeframe for an application to lodge a notice of motion with the Court has also been increased from 10 to 15 working days. Proposed changes to timeframes for direct referrals, and dealing with objections to consent authorities decisions not to grant direct referrals Another change ensures that a consent authority can recover costs incurred by it in assisting the Environment Court at a hearing for a consent application that is directly referred to the Court.	The proposed changes to section 87E and 165ZFE which would require the Regional Council to directly refer applications to the Environment Court if they meet a specific investment threshold potentially reduce the ability of the Council to make important decisions at a local level. The lack of a definition for what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ also makes it difficult to understand the potential impact of this proposed amendment. This specific change is not considered to be positive. It also seems unnecessary given that matters can be called in or requested to be directly referred under the current legislation. However, clarification of a consent authority’s requirements in instances where an application is directly referred to the Court are helpful, particularly with regard to the recovery of a consent authorities resulting costs. This was understood to be the process, however it is considered useful to have this clearly set out in the Act. The proposed amendments are considered by Staff to reflect current good practice and do seem to clarify the process. We consider these amendments are both necessary and appropriate and address issues which have arisen since the concept of direct referrals was introduced to the legislation in 2009.
Limited notification	16	95B	Minor amendment to wording required for consistency and clarity	Minor changes proposed to section 95B are unlikely to require any significant changes in Council process but seem like sensible changes.
Minor corrections to resource consents	19	133A	Consent authorities would be allowed up to 20 working days (increased from 15) to correct minor mistakes or defects in resource consents	Positive change which provides more opportunity for minor mistakes or defects to be identified and corrected.
Proposals of national significance and Boards of Inquiry	21-32	142, 146, 147, 149	A range of changes to the sections of the RMA which relate to the processing of proposal of national significance by Boards of Inquiry, and the associated call in process.	As the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has not yet had direct experience with a Board of Inquiry process, staff are not able to provide any specific comment the proposed amendments.
Environment Court proceedings	44-54	269 318 274 & 308CA	Proposed amendment requires the Environment Court to regulate its proceedings in a manner that best promotes their timely and cost-effective resolution. There is also a change with regard to the court’s proceedings in relation to applications for enforcement orders in that a person against whom an order is sought, shall be heard only if they have notified the Court registrar within 15 working days of being notified of the application. A number of the other proposed amendments relate to provisions that deal with trade competition for directly referred and called-in proceedings.	The Regional Council is supportive of the proposed amendment to section 269. Given the number of legislative changes that have been introduced in an effort to make local government more timely and cost-effective, it is considered appropriate that the Court is also encouraged to run its proceedings as effectively and efficiently as possible. Other proposed changes to Environment Court proceedings seem minor and are unlikely to require changes to Council processes, or result in additional cost to the Regional Council.
Emergency works provisions	55-56	330	‘Lifeline utilities’ are defined, and included within those works that can be undertaken in an emergency situation without resource consent.	The proposed inclusion of ‘lifeline utilities’ in the definition of those works that can be undertaken in emergency situations (section 330) without a consent seems to be a pragmatic amendment.
Resource consent hearings	86, 99, 100	41B & 103B 101 103A 97	New section 103B sets out timelines relating to provision of information for hearings: · Consent authority must provide copy of s 42A report and briefs of evidence for all those people who will appear for the authority to applicant and all submitters at least 15 working days before hearing · Applicant must provide briefs of evidence at least 10 working days before hearing · Any submitter who wishes to call expert evidence must provide briefs of evidence at least 5 working days before hearing The time limit for commencing a hearing for a notified hearing is removed, and the time within which a hearing must be commenced for a non-notified application is increased from 25 to 35 working days. New time limits are also set for completing adjourned hearings – previously an adjourned hearing had to close within 10 working days of right of reply being exercised. Now the following timeframes apply: · If an application was publicly notified, hearing must be completed within 75 working days of closing date for submissions · If application limited notified, hearing must be completed within 45 working days of close of submissions Submission period for a limited notified application now closes when all affected persons have served submissions on a consent authority	The proposed amendments to section 41B and 103B which provide additional guidance about the manner in which hearings should be run is considered positive. Pre-circulation of evidence is generally done for hearings held by the Regional Council, however because this is not currently prescribed by the Act, some applicants resist this. The experience of staff is that pre-circulation of evidence does reduce the length of hearings, and therefore their associated cost, so the introduction of section 103B which requires it is considered to be a positive amendment. The proposed changes to the timing of hearings (section 101 and 103A) also seem reasonable and consistent with the intention to streamline the resource consent process. One potential issue however is that the proposed changes to s 97 could result in the timeframes for a limited notified hearing changing, which makes it difficult to organise. For example, the ‘starting date’ for the 45 working days within which a hearing must be held could vary by as much as 15 working days if an applicant is proactive and encourages all affected persons to lodge submissions within 5 days of being notified. This can potentially make it difficult to organise a hearing, because of the lack of certainty over actual dates and may actually result in increased costs to applicants if hearings have to be rescheduled.
Resource consent processing	87, 90-107, 120-121	88-88F 91A 107F 95 42A	Changes to s 88 are proposed: · A consent authority now has 10 working days to complete s 88 checks (increased from 5 working days) · Requirement that an assessment of environmental effects corresponds with the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment has been removed from s 88 and instead inserted in Schedule 4 · Changes to the way working days are calculated. Rather than previous system in which processing was placed “on hold” for a number of reasons (ie. Further information was requested), “deadline calculation days” are now used · Timelines around s 92 are proposed to be amended. ‘Clock’ doesn’t stop until 3 days after a s 92 request is made, and only one request for further information can be made which stops the clock (both before and after notification) – ability to “stop the clock” to request further information after submissions have closed is removed · clarification of timeframes relating to seeking approvals from affected parties. This time period now commences on date applicant provides consent authority with written notice confirming that they are trying to obtain approvals, and ends either when all written approvals are provided to Council, or when applicant advises that they have ceased trying to obtain them. New section 91A provides the opportunity for applicants to suspend the processing of an application. An applicant can also ask to cease the suspension (s 91B). New section 91C also allows a consent authority to return an application to an applicant if processing of it is suspended for 130+ days (this includes time an applicant asks to have processing suspended). Changes to processing of aquaculture and coastal permits Consent authorities now have 20 working days to decide whether or not to notify an application (compared to 10). Section 42A reports can now adopt any information included in a consent application, previously only information contained within the assessment of environmental effects could be adopted. Some additional minor amendments have been in made as a consequence of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011	The proposed changes to section 88 are not considered necessary and propose to complicate what is currently a relatively straight forward part of the Act. The proposed changes will also require substantial upgrade work to be done on the Council’s consents database which is not only unexpected work, but also unbudgeted given the magnitude of the changes potentially required. It is difficult to understand why the way that workdays are calculated needs to be modified. Staff have not experienced any difficulties with the current calculation system, therefore, the value of the proposed amendments is not clear, particularly acknowledging the time and cost associated with understanding and implementing the necessary changes. The proposed changes to s 88 seem to be completely opposed to the governments overriding objective which is understood to be the simplification and streamlining of the RMA. The proposed changes, particularly to the calculation of working days, are very complex and difficult to understand, which is likely to add both time and cost to the consenting process The proposed amendments to s 92 provisions are also not considered positive. The ability to “stop the clock” to request further information after submissions close is a useful and often utilised tool. Staff consider it important that a consent authority retains the ability to request further information if a submission raises particular issues that further information is needed about. To remove this provision seems to diminish the value of submissions – they are an important part of the public process and provide an opportunity for submitters to outline their position on a proposal, and also potentially identify information gaps and/or issues that more information is needed about. Submissions are an important part of the notified consent process which help decision makers reach informed and balanced decisions. The reason for the change to when the clock stops (proposed to be 3 days after a s 92 request is made, compared to the day the request is made) is unclear, and considered to only add further confusion and complexity to the consenting process. We consider the proposed changes to section 91A legalise current best practice which is currently achieved via section 37 approvals. Giving a consent authority the ability to return an application that has been suspended for a long period of time is also a good change which staff support. Introducing the ability to adopt information into 42A reports contained anywhere in a consent application is also considered to be a sensible and pragmatic amendment which will streamline report writing for Council staff, saving time and thus money for applicants.
Information required in resource consent applications (Schedule 4)	121	Schedule 4	This schedule has been expanded. It previously set out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) – now schedule explicitly sets out information required to be included in an application for resource consent. Subsection 2 of Schedule 4 now specifically requires an applicant to demonstrate how any permitted activities which are part of a proposal comply with the relevant conditions Specific information also needs to be provided in any applications for reclamations	The substantial changes proposed to schedule 4 will require amendments to current internal processes and documentation. Application forms will also require a substantial amount of work to ensure that all of the information that now must be included in an application is specifically requested. Given the range of types of applications a Regional Council receives, the work required on application forms would be a difficult and incredibly time consuming job, when in many cases, the level of information currently contained in applications is commensurate with the scale and intensity of the proposed activity. This proposed change seems to be an extreme reaction to what is probably a relatively small problem, which may be more of an issue for TLAs compared with Regional Councils due to the difference in the nature of activities they are responsible for. The Regional Council has not experienced any difficulty in justifying the return of inadequate applications under the current legislation (which clearly some consent authorities have), therefore these changes are generally considered to be unnecessary. The increased level of information now required by schedule 4 seems appropriate for larger, more complex applications, but not necessary for some small scale applications, such as discharge permits for a single dwelling, or a water permit to irrigate 3 ha of pasture. The proposed amendments are likely to add significant additional cost to the resource consent process for applicants, and may make obtaining resource consent seem like more of a barrier to the public than is currently the case. As a result of the proposed changes, it will likely become necessary for a professional planner to prepare all resource consent applications to ensure they satisfy section 88.
Evaluation reporting for plans and policy statements	69 , 70	32, 32A	Replaces s32 entirely, inserts new s32AA and amends s32A. Proposed amendment would come into force three months after Royal assent. New s32(1) prescribes what an evaluation report must contain. The Bill requires a report which includes the evaluation and a summary of the reasons for deciding on the provisions. Evaluation reports are intended to only contain level of detail that ‘corresponds to the scale and significance’ of the effects anticipated from the proposal. S32(2) continues the obligation to assess effectiveness and efficiency by considering benefits and costs of alternatives, yet clarifies those benefits and costs (to be quantified if practicable) are to: a) relate to environmental, economic, social and cultural effects; b) include (i) opportunities for ‘economic growth’ that are anticipated to cease to be available and (ii) opportunities for employment that are anticipated to be provided or reduced. Where a change to an existing plan is proposed, s32(3) would require an assessment of the appropriateness of the new provisions to achieve the objective to consider both the newly proposed objective and the objective of the existing plan.	Recasting of s32 (and its consequential amendments) is not supported. LGNZ’s submission claims the Bill in this regard, is trying to legislate for good practice, and we agree. Practice across the country (and even within a single council, can be quite variable and not universally applicable. The amendments will inevitably condemn plan and policy making to paralysis by analysis. Already, statistics suggests that a plan change takes, on average, 7 years to work through the Schedule 1 phases. The proposed amendments will not “achieve least cost delivery of good environmental outcomes” as per Cabinet’s agreed primary objective for reform of the resource management system. The new s32(1) fundamentally shifts the goalposts from s32 evaluation being a process of interrogation and assessment, followed by summarised reporting, instead to reporting in full the analysis, reasoning, options and implications of any given proposal. This simply ignores the fact that for many plans and plan changes, local authorities commit significant resources to supporting reports and documentation in the process of evaluating options and preferred provisions for notification. The resources required to write up any such evaluation report are not to be under-estimated. Although the Bill suggests scope for evaluation reports to contain a level of detail commensurate with the scale and significance of the proposal, it is virtually inevitable that interested parties will have differing views on the level of detail contained (or not contained) in the report – if they indeed venture to look at the report itself and digest it alongside the plan / change. The Bill’s amendments might serve to unrealistically raise expectations of plan-making analysis. This does not imply opposition to raising the quality of pre-notification plan analysis in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. For example, expectations of costs to be fully quantified, a level of detail that befits a stakeholder’s expectations, but not the resources available to the local authority, and so on. All said, these proposed amendments to s32 reporting are counter-productive to Government’s agenda of speeding up plan-making and keeping costs down. The most tangible and graphic illustration of the amendments is likely to be in the sheer size of s32 evaluation reports. Notwithstanding the intent of s32(1)(c) suggesting level of detail corresponding to complexity of issues, s32 evaluation reports will inevitably be published in a form that dwarfs the plan / change proposal itself. These reports would also detract from the time and energy typically being invested by councils and stakeholder interests in many of the contemporary collaborative planning processes. While there is merit in clarifying that assessment of benefits and costs is to include environmental, economic, social and cultural matters, this seems to mirror the now repealed references to matters commonly known as the ‘four wellbeings’ in the Local Government Act. In any environment, the RMA’s own meaning of ‘environment’ and ‘effect’ already seem sufficient to ensure (as in HBRC’s current practice) a well-rounded consideration of all matters in plan-making, without necessarily trying to categorise them into one of these four boxes. The specific references to economic growth and employment will present fertile grounds for debate and legal challenge. The ‘added-value’ of this amendment is absent. The Bill does not address situations where local authorities have to amend their policy statements and plans to give effect to national planning instruments (ie: NPSs and NESs). Surely where councils are faced with obligations to take actions in response to a NPS or NES, then s32 obligations for a detailed analysis of costs should be removed and be much more straightforward.
	75, 76, 81	s61, s66, Schedule 1 Cl 5	Amendments would require councils to prepare a s32 evaluation report and have regard to that report. In essence, this means a council must prepare an evaluation report after it has prepared a proposed plan, but before that plan is notified.	There is ambiguity in the Bill as to when an evaluation report is to be completed relative to timing of plan provisions being adopted for notification. This ambiguity must be resolved in order to avoid confusion and manage expectations. There is nothing wrong with the current wording meaning summary reports be prepared and made available at the same time as the plan / change is publicly notified. Clause 5(1) implies that having prepared a plan/change, then a council must go on to prepare an evaluation report, then have regard to that report in deciding whether or not to proceed with the plan/change. This seems rather nonsensical. Why would a local authority knowingly invest not insignificant resources into preparing a plan / change, then circle round to examine and report on that proposal when it has reached a near final form. These sorts of iterations already occur in current practice and typically well prior to proposals nearing their near final form before notification. This illogical proposal is another symptom of the unnecessary requirement for a report to fully document evaluation of benefits and costs etc as opposed to the current practice of reports simply summarising the evaluation that has gone before in any number of various forms and forums. As proposed, the full evaluation is required to be included in the report. This contrasts to the current wording which clearly intends that a report need only contain a summary of the evaluation. The amendment is likely to substantially broaden the scope of the s32 report and impose additional costs on councils. It should be adequate for the report to summarise material that may be included on other with growing adoption of collaborative stakeholder processes featuring in the preliminary scoping and drafting phases of many of the Regional Council’s plan change projects. In these instances, the collaborative process is in itself the ‘testing’ ground for options, and their relative merits.
Further evaluation reports for plan-making	69	New s32AA inserted	S32AA requires a further evaluation for any alterations made to a proposed plan since the previous evaluation report was done. The further evaluation report could be in form of a stand-alone report, or referred to in the council’s decision-making record.	The mixed terminology used in s32A(1), clause (d) in particular, implies that a ‘further evaluation report’ could be published before notification. This creates confusion and expectation that multiple ‘further evaluation reports’ could need to be produced prior to notification alone. Surely it is far more straightforward to simply be required to publish the first evaluation summary report at the same time as notification of proposal, then a second further supplementary evaluation to cover subsequent modifications made to the notified version by council and/or Court decisions. If a further evaluation is built into a council’s decision-making record, this will alter the manner in which Council holds its hearings and It is likely that hearings and subsequent decision writing will become much more formal, need to be thoroughly documented, and with clearer divisions of responsibility for Hearing Panels to hear and write up their own findings to withstand possible scrutiny and challenge against failure to carry out proper s32/s32A evaluations in plan-making matters. This would align with decision-writing expectations for consent decisions, but the extra costs (say for specifically appointed decision-writers or higher skilled hearing commissioners) for plan hearings being borne by the region’s households and businesses (ie: ratepayers).

Notes:

· There are three different commencement dates for the proposed amendments. Subpart one (clauses 1-68) comes into force the day after Royal assent. Subpart two (clauses 69-85) comes into force 3 months after Royal assent. Subpart three (clauses 86-121) comes into force on a date appointed by Order in Council, or 18 months after Royal assent it not in force by then.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2013

SUBJECT: Makara Dam Statement of Proposal

Reason for Report

1. This report presents the following in relation to the reinstatement of flood protection for the Makara Valley residents following the discovery of the sinkhole in the dam in May 2012.

1.1. A draft Statement of Proposal, and summary Statement of Proposal, as part of a special consultative process in accordance with sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.2. Details and a proposed timeline for the Special consultative process and hearing

1.3. HBRC Infrastructure Asset Insurance policy, and based on that policy, a proposal for a contribution to be made to the project from HBRC’s Regional Disaster Reserve Fund.

2. The Committee are asked to provide input and comment on these so that they can be adopted by Council on 27 February 2013. (Note that there are a number of attachments that will be appended to the Statement of Proposal. These have not been included as an attachment to this paper).

3. As part of the Special Consultative Process a hearing will be required to consider all submissions. This paper also advises Council of the membership of the Hearings Panel.

Statement of Proposal

4. At their meeting on 5 December 2012, the Environment and Services Committee instructed staff to seek ratepayer feedback on specific options for the reinstatement of the level of flood protection provided by the Makara No 1 Dam through a special consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), with a hearing held to consider submissions early in the 2013 year.

5. The relevant sections of the Local Government Act 2002 are sections 83 and 84, a copy of which is attached to this paper as appendix 2.

6. An amendment is required to HBRC’s Long term Plan 2012/22 Part 4.9 page 35 because a change in the level of targeted rating for the Scheme is proposed in the Statement of Proposal.

7. Audit NZ have been asked what action they wish to take with regard Section 84(4) of the LGA which requires that the Statement of Proposal to contain a report from Council’s auditor. Audit NZ advise that as the proposal does not trigger anything in Section 97 of the LGA in terms of significantly altering the level of service, and does not change the revenue or financing policy in terms of the 90% targeted rate/10% general funding split for the Scheme; then the amendment to Scheme targeted rates does not need to be audited.

8. The LGA section 89 requires that the summary of the Statement of Proposal must be a fair representation of the major matters in the Statement of Proposal, and be in a form determined by the local authority. Accordingly endorsement of the summary of the Statement of Proposal is also sought from Council.

9. A draft Statement of Proposal and Summary of the information contained in the Statement of Proposal are attached to this paper.

10. The proposal states that the preferred option is the reinstatement of the dam at an estimated project cost of approximately $1,200,000. In meetings with community representatives, a strong desire for the reinstatement of the dam has been expressed as they believe this option will provide a better long term solution than any stopbanking option.

Special Consultative Process and timeline

11. Subject to Council’s endorsement of the Statement of Proposal at its meeting on 27 February 2013, the following timeline is envisaged.

11.1. Friday 1^st March – Letters dispatched to all Upper Makara ratepayers enclosing the summary of the Statement of Proposal.

11.2. Saturday 2^nd March – Public Notice included in local print media Hawke’s Bay Today and the next publication of the Central Hawke’s Bay Mail.

11.3. Early March – Site visit for Councillors to the Scheme, specifically including Makara No 1 dam.

11.4. March – Public meeting to be held in Elsthorpe Hall to explain content of Statement of Proposal.

11.5. Tuesday 2^nd April - Submissions close.

11.6. Friday 12^th April – Hearing to be held in Elsthorpe Hall (subject to availability)

11.7. Wednesday 24^th April – Council to consider Hearings Panel report and recommendations.

12. The Chairman of the Hearings Committee (Councillor Scott) is delegated authority to determine members of the Hearings Panel. She has determined that the Hearing panel will include Councillors Wilson and Rose and be chaired by Councillor Scott.

Infrastructure Asset Insurance Policy

13. HBRC’s Infrastructure Asset Insurance Policy is attached as appendix 2 to this paper. Of particular importance are the following statements which relate to both Scheme reserves and the Regional Disaster Reserve:

13.1. Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.

13.2. Reserves will be used to meet the cost of reinstatement of infrastructure assets (to an equivalent standard to that in place before the damage was incurred).

14. In addition it should be noted that the narrative seeking adoption of the policy (ref Asset Management and Biosecurity Committee agenda paper, Item 6, 14 February 2007), states that:- Schemes may have to borrow to meet their share of asset reinstatement costs following a disaster. Should damage occur as a result of a disaster that is greater than the scheme excess, and insurance or government assistance will not meet the cost, then Council’s regional disaster reserve will only meet 60% of the costs above the scheme excess amount. Accordingly the scheme will need to find the 40% balance of reinstatement costs. Schemes could chose to meet this cost through any funds held in their disaster reserve above the scheme excess, or through borrowing, or subject to Council agreement by allowing the scheme operating account to fall into debit.

15. The Makara Scheme disaster damage excess is calculated in the table below on the basis of current policy.

Infrastructure type	percentage	value as at 30 June 2012	Disaster damage provision
Live tree edge protection	2.5%	0	0
stopbanks and detention dams	2.0%	$1,634,338	$32,687
drainage channels etc.	1.0%	$851,314	$8,513

Disaster damage excess			$41,200

16. The Scheme depreciation reserve has been built up since HBRC commenced funding the cost of depreciation on all flood control and drainage schemes in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. The fund is available to meet the cost of replacement of assets once they reach the end of their useful life. As at 30 June 2012 the Scheme depreciation fund held a credit balance of $173,535. The annual depreciation charge is calculated by the value of the scheme assets by their expected “life”. A depreciation charge of $17,967 is budgeted for the 2012/13 year. The annual depreciation charge will change in accordance with the most recent valuation of the Scheme assets. The valuation of assets is based on the expected cost of replacement of that asset, and this estimate changes in line construction costs. Assets are revalued annually. On 30 June 2013, the depreciation reserve will have increased by generally interest earned on its credit balance plus the annual depreciation charge. It is estimated that the balance will then be a credit of $195,000 as at 30 June 2013 and approx $220,000 as at 30 June 2014.

17. In accordance with the current policy funding for the remedial project will therefore be calculated as follows:

Scheme disaster reserve	$41,200
Scheme depreciation reserve	$220,000
subtotal	$261,200
Regional disaster reserve	60% x (project cost less $261,200)
Scheme ratepayers	40% x (project cost less $261,200)

18. Therefore for a project with a cost of $1,204,000 the funding will be sourced as follows:

Estimated project cost	$1,204,000

Less disaster damage excess	$41,200
Less available funds in depreciation reserve	$220,000
Subtotal	$942,800

Regional disaster reserve	$565,680	= 60% x $942,800
Scheme	$377,120	= 40% x $942,800

19. HBRC’s disaster damage policy overrides its policy for general funding contributions to Flood Control and Drainage Schemes. HBRC contributes 10% of the cost of the Schemes annual programme of maintenance and improvement. This contribution is not applicable for the reinstatement of assets as a result of a disaster.

20. On 28 February 2007 Council resolved that this reserve should maintain a balance between $2.75m and $3.75m. This was the last time the disaster damage insurance for HBRC infrastructure assets was reviewed. As at 30 June 2012 the reserve had a market value for its investments of $3.475m.

21. The funding of the preferred option as set out in the Statement of Proposal from the Regional Disaster Reserve is estimated to be $565,680. This would therefore reduce the value of investments held by the Reserve to approximately $2.9m.

Legal liability

22. Staff have received legal advice on HBRC’s exposure to liability associated with a breach of statutory duty or duty of care arising from the failure of the dam discharge pipe, including:

22.1. Whether or not HBRC is liable to meet the cost of reinstatement of flood protection from sources other than Scheme ratepayers.

22.2. Whether HBRC is liable to downstream properties affected should a flood event occur while the dam is providing a reduced level of flood protection.

23. The advice concludes:

23.1. That in order for HBRC to be exposed to liability for a breach of statutory duty with regard to the failure of the discharge pipe, there would need to proof of negligence. HBRC has undertaken a programme of inspection and maintenance throughout the scheme since it was established. This is appropriate to fulfil the duty of care.

23.2. There is no obligation on HBRC in the event of inadequacy of the targeted rate to fund Scheme works to utilise its general funds to effectively subsidise the specific activities of the Scheme, or the work required to maintain or remedy the faults identified with the dam.

23.3. With the significant costs involved in the range of possible remedial options, HBRC is obliged to consult widely and take advice on best practice. If that takes time and the local community is unlucky enough to suffer a major flood event, HBRC would only be liable if it had been negligent, or had purposely delayed the work such as to increase the risk of damage.

Construction timing

24. The consulting engineering organisation undertaking the dam design has advised that they could complete the detailed design and contract documentation ready for consent application by the end of March 2013 if they received instruction to proceed before the end of February. They expect the consent process to take between 1 and 2 months.

25. The construction contract will require 12 to 14 weeks to complete and have a lead time of between 5 and 8 weeks between ordering and delivery of the pipes.

26. If the works are to be tendered, the tender process will take approximately 5 weeks, including at least 3 weeks for interested contractors to prepare their tenders.

27. This means that the works are unable to be completed prior to the 2013 winter. Winter conditions will make construction difficult and higher risk because of the likelihood of storm events. Construction during the 2013/14 summer is therefore being planned.

Decision Making Process

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

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

28.2. This paper initiates a Special Consultative Proposal in accordance with sections 83 & 84 of the Act.

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

28.4. The persons affected by this decision are ratepayers paying targeted rates to the Upper Makara Scheme.

28.5. Options that have been considered are set out in the Statement of Proposal.

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

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

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

2. Endorses the Statement of Proposal and summary of the Statement of Proposal for remedial work on the Upper Makara Scheme, after inclusion of any changes arising from comments and amendments suggested by the Committee.

3. Approves the contribution to the remedial works from the Regional Disaster Reserve of approximately $565,000 with the final amount to be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in this briefing paper once the final costs of the remedial work are known.

4. Notes that submissions on the Statement of Proposal will be heard by a hearings panel made up of Councillor Scott (Chairman) and Councillors Wilson and Rose.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

Statement of Proposal

Under Separate Cover

Draft submission flood control & drainage works

Attachment 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANDATORY PERFORMANCE MEASURES – FLOOD PROTECTION AND CONTROLS WORKS

Reference	Position						Recommendation
Page 2 – The term flood protection & control works’ refers to works that are designed to protect urban & rural areas from flooding from rivers.	HBRC administers the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control & Drainage Scheme. To administer this Scheme HBRC has divided the total Scheme into 10 separate areas of benefit						That the specific wording “protection from flooding from rivers” is broadened to include all waterways.
Only major works to be measured	Council supports setting a threshold whereby only major schemes are required to complete mandatory reporting. Rivers and drainage schemes are primarily funded through targeted rates to direct exacerbators and beneficiaries. The cost of monitoring and reporting these performance measures on minor schemes outweighs the value added. The Schemes that would meet the threshold in Hawke’s Bay are as follows: The Heretaunga Plains Drainage network provides essential drainage infrastructure to approx. 25,000ha of land and has a significant asset value (see below)						Subject to the change in scope set out above, proceed with the proposed threshold approach for mandatory reporting.
		Annual Op Expenditure $000		Annual Cap Expenditure $000		Scheme asset replacement value $000
	HP Rivers	1400		1100		58000
	HP Drainage	2620		600		52000
	Upper Tukituki Schemes	670		113		26000
	The Schemes that would not meet the threshold a 12 smaller schemes with combined expenditure and asset values below.
	Other small schemes	612	23		10000

Reference

Position

Recommendation

Performance Measure One

(page 6)

Page 2 of the discussion document suggests that the measures should help communities to assess whether they need a higher or lower level of service. As stated in our covering letter HBRC would welcome an increased understanding of the risk that low frequency/high consequence natural hazard events by communities.

HBRC expresses a measure similar to this in its LTP and annual plans. Community surveys show that while the community associates HBRC with flood protection and river control activities, there is a limited understanding that they remain at risk from flooding in a major event. HBRC have actively encouraged a greater community understanding and preparedness of these sort of risks for over a decade, with limited success. Our experience is that public interest significantly increases when design levels of service are exceeded and flooding does occur.

While we believe that a measure showing the economic benefit provided by the flood protection Scheme would be appropriate, this data cannot be easily collected, and is not necessarily a good indication of risk to the community.

Similarly the level of flood protection provided by a Scheme does vary overtime as longer rainfall and flood level records are collected.

We suggest a measure that provides an indication of the number of times a flood protection system has not met agreed design standards over the past ten years may assist with the public understanding of risk.

That the measure “what level of protection does flood protection & control works provide” be revised to “the number of times a flood protection system has not met agreed design standards over the past 10 years” may be a more informative measure.

Reference

Position

Recommendation

Performance Measure Two & Three

(pages 8 & 10)

Since mandatory performance measures were first mooted HBRC river engineering staff have discussed possible measures which could provide a useful measure of performance with their peers throughout NZ. Collectively river engineers have found it extremely difficult because of the range of works they are responsible for, the varying conditions which are present in different regions throughout NZ, and the range of public and political expectations they are working to.

A good example of this is performance measure 3. HBRC undertakes the majority of its river maintenance under permitted activity rules in its Regional Resource Management Plan. HBRC believes this is a pragmatic and effective approach which has resulted in the development of an Environmental Code of Practice for River works endorsed by other agencies with an interest in the maintenance and enhancement of the river environment.

HBRC believes that the proposed measures 2 & 3 are discussed on inputs and will not be effective in allowing the public to compare services provided by local authorities in NZ.

HBRC believes that these proposed measures will not provide meaningful information to enable comparisons to be made between the services delivered by different authorities, and will not assist in their understanding of the risk they live with. However HBRC is unable to suggest alternative measures because of the variety of physical, environmental, community and political contexts within which they work.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2013

SUBJECT: Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan

Reason for Report

1. This briefing paper outlines the Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan (‘the Plan’) which was presented to the Maori Committee meeting at Kohupatiki Marae on 4 December 2012.

2. At that meeting, the Maori Committee agreed “that the report be received and referred to the Regional Council for consideration.” The Maori Committee’s recommendation was subsequently verbally reported at the Council meeting on 12 December 2012.

3. This paper now presents Ngati Hori’s Plan (refer Attachment 1) for consideration by Council.

Background

4. The Plan has been prepared by Ngati Hori with some input from other agencies. In Margi McGuire’s verbal presentation of the Plan to the Maori Committee meeting in December, she indicated that the Plan had been written in 2008 and has been considered and refined by tangata whenua over four years. Mrs McGuire now felt that it was an appropriate time to present it to the Regional Council.

5. Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (‘NKII’), being the relevant iwi authority for the subject area, have themselves received and officially endorsed Ngati Hori’s Plan. NKII’s response is important because acceptance or endorsement of any management plan prepared by a hapu group then has legal implications for decision-making under the Resource Management Act (RMA). These management plans may also have a bearing on the Council’s broader projects and roles under the Local Government Act.

6. In general terms, iwi/hapu management plans are tools for outlining the concerns and aspirations of iwi/hapu that may relate to resource management and local authority planning. There is no prescribed format or content for iwi/hapu management plans. This could pose potential complexities for Council if/when numbers of these management plans grow over time.

7. It should be noted that just prior to this report being published in the meeting agenda, a letter from NKII was received requesting that the Council also endorse NKII’s own ‘Kahungunu ki Uta, Kahungunu ki Tai - Marine and Freshwater Fisheries Strategic Plan’ (undated). Insufficient time was available for staff, as part of this paper, to contemplate implications of ‘endorsing’ NKII’s own marine and freshwater fisheries strategic plan.

Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan ‘Operation Patiki’

8. Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki, a hapu of Ngati Kahungunu ki Heretaunga, is the kaitiaki of the lower Karamu Stream. The rohe of Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki extends from the Ngaruroro River mouth to where the Karamu Stream flows past Kohupatiki Marae, upstream to Pakowhai and the beginning of the Raupare Stream (refer to map on page 5 of Plan).

9. Ngati Hori’s Plan sets out a number of objectives and priorities stating the intent of Ngati Hori regarding their interests in freshwater. Ngati Hori seek a cultural and environmental partnership between themselves and the Council, which will result in joint strategies developed to address the issues identified in the Plan.

Key features of Ngati Hori’s Plan

10. Key features of Ngati Hori’s Plan are outlined in the following table.

Priority	Explanation	Desired Outcome
Priority One	Achieving sufficient water flow	Restore minimum flow levels Restore the river bed to shingle
Priority Two	Improved water quality	Less contaminants discharged into the Karamu Stream by industry
Priority Three	Protection and restoration of traditional riparian vegetation	Increased natural vegetation for Karamu Stream along Kohupatiki Marae
Priority Four	Protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat	Establishment of measures that will allow Ngati Hori to revitalize and protect fisheries and fish habitat in the Karamu Stream

11. The Plan (on page 16) also states ‘consultation guidelines’ on how parties (i.e. the Council) should engage with Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki to achieve the most effective outcomes. The guidelines provide advice on when, where and how Council should engage Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki. In brief, these are:

11.1. identify the appropriate individual or group

11.2. holding typically three face to face meetings for effective consultation on an issue

11.3. hold meetings in the early evenings and be flexible with times

11.4. give at least two weeks’ notice of consultation

11.5. preference for meetings to be held on the marae

11.6. full disclosure of information from both Ngati Hori ki Kohupatiki and Council.

Implications for the Regional Council

12. As noted above, Ngati Hori seek a cultural and environmental partnership between themselves and the Council, which will result in joint strategies developed to address the issues identified in the Plan. Any such partnership would have implications for the Council’s activities in addition to the Council’s statutory duties under the RMA in terms of consideration to be given to iwi/hapu planning documents.

13. In the RMA, there are specific statutory duties relating to iwi/hapu planning documents. These include:

RMA Section	Council action	Statutory requirement
s35A	Duty to keep records about iwi and hapu	Keep and maintain...a record of....planning documents that are recognised by each iwi authority and lodged...
s61(2A)(a)	Preparing or changing a regional policy statement	Take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority
s66(2A)(a)	Preparing or changing a regional plan	Take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority
s104(1)(c)	Consideration of consent applications	Have regard to any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application

14. If the Council were to receive the Plan, then the Council would clearly be expected to consider the Plan as a iwi/hapu management plan for purposes of decision-making under the Resource Management Act. Receiving the Plan would not constitute forming a ‘partnership’, but rather an acknowledgement that the Council would need to abide by the RMA’s statutory obligations as highlighted above.

15. A partnership would require fuller consideration of the benefits of costs of the partnership. That would need to include considering how any costs incurred by Council might be accommodated.

16. The 2012-22 Long Term Plan (LTP) currently includes some projects and initiatives (such as research and studies within flood control scheme areas and river corridors) that are likely to involve liaison with Ngati Hori (and other hapu groups as relevant). However, the LTP does not currently contain any provision for specific formation of, and ongoing arrangements for, a partnership with Ngati Hori in their rohe.

17. Nevertheless, in a variety of its projects, the Council will be seeking input and feedback on possible initiatives. For example, the ‘TANK’ plan change process for the wider Heretaunga area will undoubtedly traverse many of the issues documented in Ngati Hori’s Plan. A collaborative stakeholder process is already underway for the TANK project. Continuing the Te Karamu project and reviews of asset management plans for the drainage scheme areas are other examples of projects that are likely to present opportunities for Ngati Hori’s Plan to be considered.

Decision Making Process

18. 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:

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

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

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

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

18.5. 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 Environment and Services Committee receives the Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan.

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

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

3. Notes that the Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan will be considered as an iwi/hapu management plan for purposes of decision-making under the Resource Management Act.

Esther-Amy Bate

Planner

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Attachment/s

1 View

Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan

Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan

Attachment 1

NGĀTI HORI FRESHWATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

“OPERATION PATIKI”

2009/2012

Ko Te Amorangi kia mua ko te hapai o ki muri te tuturutanga mahi pono o te Maori Mana motuhake

INTRODUCTION

Ma wai ra e Taurima

If not we then who?

1. Purpose and scope of this plan

This document presents Ngāti Hori’s priorities and objectives in relation to freshwater. This document will play an important part in achieving our aspirations for freshwater in our Rohe. It provides a foundation for our planning for freshwater and represents a continuous process of management, from past to current times, of the Karamu Stream and its resources.

This plan is also designed in large part to influence the regional policy on freshwater and flows, including the Karamu Stream Enhancement Plan. It is hoped that the Hawkes Bay Regional Council will take this plan, and any other related future documents, into account when they are changing or making plans in relation to freshwater. In particular, we expect that this document and the plan that it envisions will be taken into consideration as Hawkes Bay Regional Council proceeds with its current Karamu Catchment Enhancement Plan.

Our plan is based around the following priorities of Ngāti Hori in freshwater:

· Achieving sufficient water flow

· Improving water quality

· Protection and restoration of traditional riparian vegetation

· Protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat

These priorities are based on Ngāti Hori’s values in the Karamu stream. They were articulated through various hui held through 2008 and 2009 as well as a cultural mapping exercise and a customary fisheries survey undertaken by Ngāti Hori in partnership with fisheries biologist Ian Kusabs.

This plan is organised around these priorities and related issues. Each issue is then considered in relation to the desired outcomes that we are working towards as well as our plan for achieving these outcomes.

2. Whakapapa

Te Tahatu ote Rangi belonged to Te Whatuiapiti of Poukawa and he was sent for to help defend Tanenuiarangi Pa. The Pakake of Tanenuiarangi Pa asked first for Te Rangikoianake the Tuakana of Te Tahatu ote Rangi but the Rangatira Manawakawa would not agree and sent Te Tahatu ote Rangi instead.

Defending Tanenuiarangi along with Te Tahatu ote Rangi were Te Tutura and Rangikamangungu. When Te Rangikoianake heard of this he rushed to assist his brother. Together they fought and defeated the war party. The name of the battle was called Whakamarino.

However Ngati Porou wanted to avenge their defeat and returned. Te Tahatu sent messengers to Kouturoa Pa and Motukumara Pa on Lake Oingo for reinforcements. Half the warriors returned to assist Te Tahatu ote Rangi at Tanenuiarangi. Ngati Porou attacked Motukumara first, killing all there, and then turned their attention on Tanenuiarangi.

The attack began by surrounding Tanenuiarangi but by night fall the attack failed. As well, they tried to burn down the Pa, tunnel under it and even attempted to pull down the pallisades with the help of waka. Every attempt to take the Pa failed.

In the war party was Te Ruruku who saw his daughter Hineioroia Te Rangi. She was married to Rangikamangungu’s son. Te Ruruku sent his younger brother Meke and a party of warriors who landed their waka at Te Rae o Kore seeking a peace. An Adze was exchanged by Rangikaunuhia giving this to Meke calling a truce and averting bloodshed. Meke took his canoe then went on to the ford at Ihanganui turned around and returned to their Kainga.

Kohupatiki,16 ‎Hui-tanguru, ‎2012

Kohupatiki was established in the 1860’s by Te Waka Kawatini, who had no Heirs so invited his nephew Paora Torotoro to join him. On November 18th, 1869 the Rotopounamu No 1. block was Crown-granted to the following five grantees: Paora Torotoro, Te Waka Kawatini, Tamehana Pekapeka, Tareha Te Moananui and Ahere Te Koare. Ahere Te Koare having no issue saw his title inherited by his grand neice Ngamihi Te Kehu Chadwick who repatriated from Taumarunui Tuwharetoa. Her grandmother Te Hoerakau had been taken captive during the musket wars of 1824 at the battle of Te Pakake Ahuriri.

Kohupatiki, Riparian strip,14 ‎Mahuru, ‎2010

3. Kohupatiki

Ngāti Hori is a hapū of Ngati Kahungunu ki Heretaunga. Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki are kaitiaki of the lower Karamu Stream and have a close historic and traditional relationship with the Karamu and the former course of the Ngaruroro River. The Ngaruroro, was very much part of daily life for Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki and provided an abundant source of mahinga kai (wild food resources such as fish, waterfowl and plants). The importance of the Ngaruroro River to Ngāti Hori is reflected in the location of Kohupatiki Marae which is situated on the true left bank of the lower Karamu Stream.

This plan covers from the river’s mouth to where the Karamu Stream flows past Kohupatiki up to Pakowhai the beginning of the Raupare stream.

4. Policy and legal context

This plan for the management of our freshwater is related to the current Heretaunga-Tamatea Treaty of Waitangi claim and the Hawkes Bay Regional Council’s Karamu Stream Enhancement Project that was in its early stages of implementation during the drafting of this plan.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Stream Enhancement Project is a comprehensive enhancement programme for the Karamu catchment that aims to eventually improve water quality and fisheries values in the lower Karamu Stream. This programme includes riparian planting, restricted stock access to the riparian margins, enhanced public access, screening of industry and development of wetlands for stormwater treatment and enhancement of mahinga kai species (such as plantings for inanga spawning). Under the current strategy for enhancement of the Karamu Stream, Maori values are provided for under the generic category of “Amenity” values. This is of primary concern to Ngāti Hori because their cultural values are not necessarily in line with other amenity values such as “beauty” and “landscape” values nor are they fully encompassed within the notion of amenity values. This plan then will assist us to realise our unique cultural values within the larger social-ecological system of the Karamu Stream.

Resource managers are obliged under Part II of the Resource Management Act 1991 in their exercise of functions and powers under the RMA to recognize and provide for matters of national importance including “the relationship of Maori and their cultures and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wahi tapu and other toanga” (s.6). Under section 7, decision makers must have particular regard to certain other matters in carrying out the purpose of the Act. These matters include kaitiakitanga (section 7(a)). Kaitiakitanga is defined in the Act as the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori. Section 8 provides that in achieving the purpose of the Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

5. Strategy for achieving recognition of this Plan

Operation Patiki will be driven by a working group that will meet on a bi-monthly basis. This plan will also be lodged with the Hawkes Bay Regional Council and will include Consultation Guidelines to assist people when consulting with Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki on this plan and other matters.

Priority 1

· Achieving sufficient water flow

The Karamu Stream is a low gradient waterway that drains a catchment area of 490 km². The Karamu flows through Havelock North and the small townships of Whakatu and Clive before entering an estuarine river mouth which it shares with the Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro rivers. The current Karamu Stream was once a former course of the Ngaruroro River, until 1867 when a large flood changed the course of the river. Flooding of the productive, southern area of the Heretaunga Plains has been an issue since the time of settlement, and in 1969, as part of the Heretaunga Plains Flood Protection scheme, the Ngaruroro River was diverted to the north, leaving the Karamu and Raupare streams to feed the lower Karamu Stream or as it also known the Clive River.

The diversion of the Ngaruroro River in 1969 dramatically altered the lower Karamu Stream, that is, from the Karamu/Raupare confluence downstream to its mouth at Waitangi Estuary. Prior to the diversion this section was dominated by the Ngaruroro River – a large, rapid-flow river, with high water quality and a gravel bed substrate. This change of flow regime, in conjunction with substantial landuse changes in the Karamu Stream catchment has increased the volume of nutrients, sediments and pollutants entering this section of the Karamu Stream. Without the flushing ability of the Ngaruroro River, this section of river has become a soft-bottomed channel, lacking the riffle and pools previously associated with it. Moreover, the diversion has resulted in a reduction in the dilution properties of the Karamu Stream and increased the concentration of nutrients and pollutants. A new river ecosystem, including fisheries values, has evolved in response to these changes.

In 2008, when Ngati Hori conducted a fisheries survey of the Karamu Stream, it flowed at a moderate velocity over a predominantly gravel and sand stream bed substrate. In the middle and lower sites, the river flowed slowly over a mud and sand stream bed with few pools. The Hawkes Bay Regional Council extracts gravel at random times and locations, which further destroys the systems supported by the Karamu Stream.

Ngāti Hori’s values in the Karamu Stream, especially in relation to customary fisheries, depend on the restoration of minimal flow levels that have largely been destroyed due to the extensive historic river diversion. Flow levels in the Karamu Stream are thus of primary importance to Ngāti Hori’s role as kaitiaki of the area and the species once well supported by the stream system. The futures of both the Karamu Stream and the values it provides for are uncertain. This is because the Karamu Stream continues to be viewed and treated as a flood channel and the long term plan of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council is to increase protection against floods through the widening of the Karamu Stream where it passes by Kohupatiki marae. As this will potentially result in even lower water flows and greatly alter the riverbank even further, these plans directly conflict with Ngāti Hori’s aspirations for the long-term management of the Karamu Stream and the species it supports.

Issues

1.1 The Hawkes Bay Regional Council plans for widening the Karamu Stream directly conflict with Ngāti Hori’s aspirations for the long-term management of the Karamu Stream and the species it supports.

Outcome: Influence Hawkes Bay Regional Council plans for widening the Karamu Stream.

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Information stocktake of all past, current and future actions of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council for the management of the Karamu water flows.

1. Get access to any HBRC’s engineering reports

2. Read HBRC’s Karamu Enhancement Plan

3. Attend all HBRC consultations on the Karamu Stream

Ongoing

TM, AP

2. Find ways that Operation Patiki can influence plans for widening the Karamu Stream.

1. Identify contacts in HBRC in relevant areas

2. Take HBRC staff, engineers and mayor on river

3. Find data on past state of Karamu and past management

4. Building on cultural mapping exercise from 2008 and database to gain data on past state of Karamu & how values and ways of using have changed

5. Work with HBRC to come up with solutions

Ongoing

Jan/Feb 2010

Jan-March 2010

Jan 2010

Ongoing

TM, AP

1.2 Management of the Karamu Stream has created a change of flow regime that, in conjunction with substantial landuse changes, has destroyed the flushing ability of the river. In the past the water flowed rapidly and the bottom was made of gravel bed substrate. The Karamu has now become a soft-bottomed channel that is choked with weeds.

Outcome: Restore the bottom of the river to shingle to create a steady flow.

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Dredge/Digger to clear the bottom.

1. Identify contacts in HBRC in relevant area

2. Take HBRC staff, engineers and mayor on river

3. Find data on how dredging was done in the past

4. Approach other groups for support for this method

5. Exert political pressure

6. Find culturally appropriate diggers for sections with wahi tapu sites

Ongoing

Jan/Feb 2010

Jan-March 2010

Ongoing

Jan-March 2010

TM, AP

TM, MM, AP

2. Pump water in periodically

1. Identify contacts in HBRC in relevant area

2. Take HBRC staff, engineers and mayor on river

3. Find data on how this could be achieved

4. Approach other groups for support for this method

5. Exert political pressure

Ongoing

Jan/Feb 2010

Jan-March 2010

Ongoing

TM, AP

3. Clear the silt.

1. Identify contacts in HBRC in relevant area

2. Take HBRC staff, engineers and mayor on river

3. Find data on how this could be achieved

4. Approach other groups for support for this method

5. Exert political pressure

Ongoing

Jan/Feb 2010

Jan-March 2010

Ongoing

TM, AP

Priority 2

· Improving water quality

Explanation

There are many contributing factors to the increasingly poor water quality in the Karamu Stream. The Karamu Stream catchment includes the urban and industrial areas of Hastings, Havelock North, Whakatu and Clive. There are a range of different land uses in the area including Kohupatiki Marae, residential housing at Whakatu, orchards and heavy industry.

Ngāti Hori is concerned about the potential for stormwater run off from urban, roads and industrial areas that may contain contaminants such as heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead mercury, nickel and zinc) and hydrocarbons. Additionally, in the area many crops are treated repeatedly with herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and other chemicals. There is also a long history of significant discharge of contaminants by industry. The cumulative discharge of such chemicals when combined with elevated amounts of sediment and nutrients can result in an overall degradation of fisheries and aquatic values. These contaminants are not only toxic to fish but also have the potential to accumulate in the environment and food chain.

Another effect is the build up of nutrients (such as animal waste, fertiliser and industrial discharge) that is causing eutrophication in the Karamu which leads to abundant growths of aquatic macrophytes (aquatic plants that grow in or near water and are either emergent, submergent, or floating) and algae. A recent fisheries survey by Ian Kusabs revealed dense aquatic macrophytes beds, comprised mainly of Potamogeton crispus, present at all sites, while the marginal aquatic plant, Apium nodiflorum or water celery, proliferates in the upper site. Suspended sediments and weeds also make it difficult for fish to visually find food.

Industrial development on the margins of the Karamu has the potential to further decrease the water quality, thus adversely effecting the environment. Despite iwi and hapū resistance in the area, new zoning for industry continues and Maori remain unable to significantly influence council’s decisions in this regard.

Description: Old Ngaruroro 3
Issues

2.1 Industry continues to discharge into the Karamu, both through permitted and non-permitted discharges, which negatively affects water quality.

Outcome: Less contaminants discharged into the Karamu by industry.

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Develop a monitoring plan for water quality

1. Get training for water quality monitoring

2. Identify sites for monitoring.

3. Identify team and establish a monitoring plan.

4. Investigate culturally relevant ways of monitoring alongside scientific measures (ie. Cultural Health Index)

5. Develop baseline data with regular monitoring (ie. weekly).

Completed

Early 2010

Ongoing

To be determined

Based on Ian Kusab’s report

2. Investigate an opportunity to receive/use development levies for remedial projects to be undertaken by Ngāti Hori that could enhance the quality of the Karamu Stream

1. Approach HBRC to see where levies go

2. Lobby HBRC to receive some of those levies

3. Set up a structure and plan for dealing with levies received

To be determined

Priority 3

· Protection and restoration of traditional riparian vegetation

Explanation

One of the focus areas of the Karamu Stream Enhancement Plan is the re-vegetation of riparian zones. Riparian vegetation throughout the area is presently comprised mainly of pasture grasses and weeds with occasional groups of willow (Salix spp.) and poplar (Populus spp.) trees.

In the past these banks were abundant with native species such as flax, toetoe and cabbage tree. Overhanging vegetation provided natural habitat for fish species. The high light level now getting through to the stream increases the growth of aquatic weeds.

At present, native vegetation is extremely sparse and most native wetland species on the stream margins have either been grazed or sprayed out.

Contributing to the problem is that the course of the stream has been highly altered throughout the 1900s as a flood channel and for development purposes. Prior to development, it would have had a greater variation of depth and width, and wetland areas would have formed as the stream shifted after floods. Now, however, the streams course is mostly uniform and it lacks the natural pools, riffles and runs that would have in the past provided in-stream habitat.

Description: Old Ngaruroro 1

Issues

3.1 The destruction of natural vegetation along the Karamu Stream over the years means that there no longer is a filter system to prevent run-off nutrients from reaching the water and has destroyed much of the in-stream habitat for fish.

Outcome: Increased natural vegetation for Karamu Stream along Kohupatiki Marae

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Planting project for Kohupatiki Marae 2010-2011.

1. Define project boundaries

2. Identification of plant types and number

3. Site inspections of other groups

4. Memorandum of Understanding with Periodic Detention for maintenance

5. Submit application for Department of Conservation funding

6. Community planting day (advertised & sausage sizzle)

Completed

Mid-2010

AP & MM

2. Creating a long-term source of plants

1. Memorandum of Understanding with Mangateretere School

2. Memorandum of Understanding with Chadwick Trust

3. Explore other sources of funding (Genesis Trust, community sponsorships)

Ongoing

Completed

Ongoing

AP & MM

3.2 The destruction of natural vegetation along the Karamu Stream has decreased its natural beauty and impacts negatively on Ngāti Hori’s relationship to the Stream.

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Signal to Hawkes Bay Regional Council and wider community the rekindling of kaitiaki

1. Notify Maori standing committee of Hawkes Bay Regional Council of intention to submit this plan to regional council.

2. Submit this plan to Maori standing committee of Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

3. Submit this plan to Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

Jan 2010

March 2010

AP & MM

Description: kohupatiki river 015

Kohupatiki, river bank riparian planting, 14 ‎Mahuru, ‎2010

Priority 4

· Protection and restoration of fish and fish habitat

Explanation

In September 2008, Ngāti Hori completed a fisheries survey with Ian Kusabs, a fisheries biologist, which recorded a diverse fish assemblage with 8 species of native freshwater fish: common bully, common smelt, goldfish, inanga, mosquito fish, shortfinned eel, torrentfish and yelloweyed mullet. The Karamu Stream also supports important customary and recreational fisheries for whitebait, eel, black flounder and yelloweyed mullet.

The diversion of the Ngaruroro in 1969, in conjunction with extensive land development in the Karamu Stream catchment, has created a new ecosystem in the lower Karamu. This ecosystem is characterised by a soft-bottomed channel, lacking riffles and pools and elevated concentrations of nutrients, pollutants, abundant growths of aquatic weeds and a fish community dominated by hardy, lowland fish species such as shortfinned eel, inanga and yelloweyed mullet. Fisheries values in the lower Karamu Stream have been adversely affected by these changes and other river channel and drainage works. It was recommended from the 2008 fisheries survey that Ngāti Hori implement a fisheries monitoring programme, based on traditional fishing methods, to monitor fisheries resources in the lower Karamu Stream. This will enable Ngāti Hori to establish baseline fisheries data and to monitor any future changes in the lower Karamu Stream fishery.

Issues

4.1 As tangata whenua, Ngāti Hori seeks to have increased powers of management for their fisheries.

Outcome: Establishment of measures that will allow Ngati Hori to revitalize and protect fisheries and fish habitat in the Karamu Stream.

Method

Actions

Timeframe

Authority

1. Explore which measures are appropriate, including rahui and maitaitai reserves.

1. Talk to people to gather necessary data.

2. Decide on appropriate measures.

3. Identify appropriate sites.

4. Prepare and submit application to relevant authority (ie. Ministry of Fisheries).

Ongoing

To be determined

AP, MM

AP, TM, MM

2. Implement a fisheries monitoring programme.

1. Seek funding to set up and implement a program.

Ongoing

All

CONSULTATION GUIDELINES

1. When consulting with Ngāti Hori ki Kohupatiki it is essential that in each matter the appropriate person or group from within the hapū is identified. The identity of this person is likely to vary from each matter and steps should be taken in each case to ensure that consultation is taking place with the appropriate person/groups.

2. Effective consultation is likely to take place over three face-to-face meetings. The first meeting will serve as a basic introduction of key persons and of the issue to be discussed. The second and third meetings will ensure that the hapū has had time to gather/discuss relevant data and has a full understanding of the issue.

3. In recognition of the daily commitments of hapū members, flexible times for meetings should be the norm and reflect the hapū’s preference for early evening meetings.

4. Advance notification of consultation is required. This notification will be deemed adequate where it is given two weeks in advance and followed up with a reminder notice.

5. It should also be noted that meetings will be more meaningful where they are held on the marae though Ngāti Hori will be flexible with location of meetings.

6. It should also be noted that adequate consultation involves more than a committee of people around a table. Rather it requires that all key parties are brought to the table and given full information on the matter.

7. It is expected through the series of three meetings that both parties will compile data including a hard copy list of all contacts and make this available to each other.

For more information about this plan please contact:

Margaret Akata McGuire

Tel: 06 8700093

Margi.mcguire@slingshot.co.nz

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Environment and Services Committee

Wednesday 20 February 2013

SUBJECT: Update on Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation Uptake

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to update council on progress of the Resource Management (Water Measurement and Reporting) Regulations 2010 first role out requiring meters to be installed on consents 20l/s or greater.

2. To confirm Councils position on the role and value that telemetry adds to water management in the region.

3. To outline the management of metering and water use data from portable irrigation pumps in the Hawke’s Bay Region.

Background

4. On 10 November 2010 the Resource Management (Water Measurement and Reporting) Regulations 2010 come into force. With the first roll out requiring meters to be installed on consents 20l/s or greater

5. The regulations will apply to any water take consent for 5 L/s or more, granted after this date 10 November 2010.

6. Existing water permits for more than 5 L/s have a lead-in time before they must comply with the Regulations and dependant on the rate of take allowed by the permit.

· takes between 5 – 10 l/s will require a meter by 10 November 2012

· takes between 10 – 20 l/s will require meter by 10 November 2014

· takes above 20 l/s will require a meter within by 10 November 2016

7. In November 2010 a paper outlining the introduction of the National Water Meter Regulations and implications for Council, was presented to the Environmental Management Committee.

8. The Environmental Management Committee agreed that it would;

8.1. Require that water permits for the taking of water which are subject to minimum flow restrictions in rivers and streams set out in Table 9 of the RRMP, and takes from sensitive groundwater areas, record their water use on a daily basis.

8.2. Allows takes from other less sensitive areas to record their water use on a weekly basis.

9. Proposed policy for the Tukituki includes a specific policy approach for the use of telemetry.

Progress

10. Greater than 20l/s at the 10 November 2012 deadline:

10.1. There were 910 consents that were affected by the 10/11/12 deadline;

10.2. From our records 471 number of consents had meters installed and 439 were required to have a meter;

10.3. There are 538 consents >20l/s required to record their water use weekly;

10.4. There are 372 consents >20l/s required to record their water use daily;

10.5. Compliance are following up on 70 consents that have not contacted Council to inform if meters have been installed;

10.6. There has been a marked increase of consent holders entering water use directly on to the Councils web page or using telemetry to report their water use;

10.7. These figures include all consents required to report their water use, not just those affected by the regulations.

The value of telemetered water use data

11. At a recent meeting of Horticultural stakeholders questions were raised around the value of telemetry. This discussion has been somewhat overtaken now by the policy development in the Tukituki where an approach will be clarified.

12. Daily water use information gathered daily via telemetry provides Council and users, with a significantly more accurate picture of water use demand in the region. Telemetered water use data is critical to accurate modelling of water resources, both from an allocation and hydrogeology perspective. Over time this data builds upon itself to enable Council and users to better manage the regional water resource.

13. Telemetered data provides water users with robust data for dynamic water management. Understanding actual use and coupling this with crop requirements (through such things as soil moisture probes) allows users to only apply what the actual plant requirements are so reducing energy costs and the nutrient loss.

14. Telemetery is facilitating a shift in conversation with irrigators from one of an individual right to one of a common good. It creates the right environment to consider global consents and smarter use of available water. This has become particularly evident recently in the Twyford area where for the first time many irrigation takes are linked to minimum flows. The use of telemetry data is enabling the Twyford Irrigator Group (TIG) to influence stream flows in their area by reducing irrigation demand and shifting the irrigation away from the stream on a day by day basis. Data provided daily to the TIG allows them to assess river flows and then self manage to prolong the period that the river sits above the minimum flow.

Portable Pumps

15. The regulations for the measurement and reporting of water takes 2010 require the meter to be:

21.1 Sealed and is as tamper proof as possible;

21.2 Installed at the location from which the water is taken (unless written approval is granted by the Regional Council to locate it at any other location which is as near as practicable to the location from which the water is taken);

16. The Hawke’s Bay region has a large number of itinerant croppers ie: J Bostock Ltd, Apatu Farming group etc, who use motorized portable pump units to irrigate with. As a rule at the point of take there is no fixed infrastructure to fit meters into.

17. Over the past 3 years Water Information has been working closely with telemetry providers and portable pump users to develop a practical and cost effective solution, that is consistent with the regulations tamper proofing requirement. To formalise and document the requirements reporting water use from portable pumps a technical specification has been developed with assistance from Apatu Farms and J Bostock Ltd.

18. This development allows for a water meter to be fitted in steel pipe work on each portable pump unit, with telemetry and a GPS unit. Water use and location are reported to Council, newly developed software takes the location and matches it to the appropriate consent and stores the water use accordingly. These requirements meet those needed to satisfy section 360 of the Resource Management Act.

19. Currently there are 52 portable units operating under this agreement covering approximately 350 consents, this number is growing. In future we estimate there could be as many as 150 portable pump units operating in the region.

20. There are significant cost savings made in setting up the portable pump units in this manner. J M Bostock Ltd have reported that their savings across 76 consents was in the vicinity of $280,000 if this is extrapolated to all 377 consent currently being reported in this manner, this could be a saving to the horticulture sector in the vicinity of $1,320,000.

21. Staff have drafted policy for the use of portable pumps to meet the regulation requirements. This is currently being reviewed by other councils and stakeholders and is in future likely to form the basis of a nationally consistent approach.

Financial and Resource Implications

22. There are no financial or resource implications for Council arising from this paper

Decision Making Process

23. 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 Environment and Services Committee receives the report “Update on Water Measurement and Regulation Uptake”.

Kelvin Ferguson

Water Information Project Co-Ordinator

Bryce Lawrence

Manager - Compliance and Harbours

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Resource Management

Attachment/s

1 View

Technical Specifications and Installation requirements for Portable Pumps

Hawke's Bay Biodiversity Strategy Terms of Reference (TORs) draft

Attachment 1

Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy | Steering Group
Terms of Reference

1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to describe the Context, Role and Operating Procedures for the Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group (BSSG) that is being convened to develop a regional biodiversity strategy for Hawke’s Bay by December ~~2013~~2014.

2. Study Area

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy or HBBS is a non-statutory undertaking with a study area confined to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s physical and biological legal boundaries. However, the group’s activities may extend outside HBRC boundaries to achieve regional outcomes and objectives.

3. Introduction

One action from the adopted Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy is to develop a ‘Regional Biodiversity Strategy’ with relevant agencies such as the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game NZ, QEII Conservation Trust, Nga Whenua Rahui and territorial authorities. These agencies and stakeholders recognise the value of stronger alignment of individual activities and a clearer common purpose in responding to biodiversity challenges in the region. There are a range of initiatives that can be and are being undertaken by these organisations and others which contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity. As such, the HBBS will be led by a Steering Group comprising members of these groups.

There is increasing recognition that well-connected natural ecological systems of sufficient scale are needed to support sustainable and diverse species within the Hawke’s Bay landscape. People living in the region want to ensure our natural landscape values are protected for generations to come.

The broad agreement and the collaboration of all stakeholders through a shared biodiversity strategy is vital. This will help to achieve the necessary changes in land and water management required for sustainable indigenous ecosystems in the region.

A jointly developed Regional Biodiversity Strategy will set:

· long term goals to achieve effective habitat protection to enable successful and diverse ecological systems;

· a region wide approach to biodiversity, with strategies to achieve those goals;

· priority areas for action and/or any funding commitment required; and

· the respective contributions of all stakeholders toward achieving those goals.

To that end, HBRC is facilitating a collaborative multi-agency approach to engage the wider community in developing a cohesive biodiversity strategy.

Understanding the region’s current level of biodiversity will involve the identification and mapping of areas of significant indigenous biodiversity. An agreed baseline inventory for biodiversity components will be established in 2012-13, and as part of the State of the Environment monitoring programme data will be collected to update ~~the~~ a regional biodiversity information database, which would also be contributed to by other organisations.

The costs associated with the development of a biodiversity inventory and strategy are $87,500 in Year 2102/13 and $15,500 in Year 2013/14.

4. Strategy and Key Drivers

The Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy (HBBS) will provide a framework to stock take and guide activities protecting and managing biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay. It is envisaged that the parent agencies of the BSSG will support the strategy by signing an accord committing them to action to deliver the strategy objectives.

The vision is to improve the region’s biodiversity by the year 2035, or as a minimum to maintain current biodiversity levels.

This work will also set long term goals to achieve effective habitat protection, enable successful and diverse ecological systems, identify priority areas for action and the additional funding required.

A Core Working Group has been established to draft the technical elements of the strategy. This group consists of DOC, Fish and Game, QE II Trust, HB Forestry, Nga Whenua Rahui and HBRC staff.

HAWKE’S BAY BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY VISION & OUTCOMES (to be confirmed)

5. Project Timeframe

Council’s long term plan outlines the following specific outputs for the biodiversity strategy:

· 2012-13 finalise scope of strategy and begin preparation of draft strategy

· 2013-14 Consult on the draft strategy and prepare the final biodiversity strategy

· 2014-15 prepare the programme for work relevant to HBRC for inclusion in the next long term plan

6. Role of the Steering Group

The role of the BSSG will be:

· To provide governance to the Core Working Group in the development of the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy;

· To report progress milestones back to HBRC Councillors;

· To clarify areas of uncertainty or disagreement;

· To assist with community engagement and communication; and

· To keep their individual BSSG member organisations aware of biodiversity strategy development progress and engaged in strengthening.

7. Membership

BSSG members have been selected to reflect the broad interests in biodiversity and to provide a cross-section of values, understanding and perspectives. It is expected that members will engage with their organisations and wider social networks to explain what is happening in the collaborative process and to get feedback from them on the matters under consideration.

If someone considers that an important sector, interest or perspective is not represented in the group, we will consider adding another member, taking into account the availability of potential members and the need to keep the group to a size that can work effectively together.

The members of BSSG group have, in the main, been nominated by their respective sector or group to be their mandated representative. Where members have not been given the mandate of their sector or group, they will participate as individuals and are expected to also convey ideas and perspectives from their wider networks. In meeting three, each member will declare whether they are mandated representatives or not. At the end of the process, each member will declare whether they can support the proposed agreement and promote it to their organisations and networks (see definition of consensus below). Members will also be asked, at that point, whether their organisations (where relevant) would formally endorse the consensus agreement.

The BSSG includes:

Organisation	Confirmed	Suggestion	Point of contact
NCC		Tony Billing	Rod
HDC		Rowan Little or Philip Mackay	Tim
WDC		Peter Freeman	Warwick
CHBDC		Helen O’Shaughnessy	Iain
Fish & Game	John Cheyne
Forest & Bird		Neil Eagles	John Cheyne
Federated Farmers	Bruce Wills		Warwick
Nga Whenua Rahui	Mike Mohi
Ngati Kahungunu II		TBC	Mike Mohi
Maori Trustee		TBC	Mike Mohi
DOC	Dave Carlton
DairyNZ		Anna Lambourne	Warwick
HortNZ/Fruitgrowers		TBC	Campbell
MPI		Gillian Mangan	Campbell
Te Taiao HB Environment Forum		Vaughan Cooper	John Cheyne
HB Forestry	Brett Gilmore
QEII Covenant Trust	Troy Duncan
HBRC Councillors	Neil Kirton Liz Remmerswaal Ewan McGregor		Iain
Farm Forestry Committee	Marie Taylor		Warwick
Winegrowers			Campbell
Animal Health Board	Frank Pavitt		Campbell
KEY – also a member of the HBBS Core Working Group

8. Protocols for Collaborative Deliberation

This process is not just another consultation exercise – it is a new way of decision-making. Rather than simply advocating for a particular point of view, participants will be expected to explore, consider and deliberate on solutions that accommodate diverse views and interests, and to refrain from tactics that are divisive.

The protocol includes:

· Members must be willing to participate cooperatively for the greater good of sustainable biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay.

· Members must commit to open, honest and collaborative deliberations. To this end, we will follow the Chatham House Rule. This means that participants are free to discuss aspects of the process with other parties (excluding the media, see next point) but shall not attribute speakers or their affiliations to discussed options or opinions. The list of participants will be made public though.

· Contributions made within the Group will be “without prejudice”. That is, nothing said within the Group may be used in a subsequent process except for any recommendations and agreements reached by the Group.

· Members agree to refrain from discussion and debate through the media or public websites etc. If newsletters or group emails are used to communicate with networks, members are expected to show restraint and respect for other views and avoid promoting discord within the group. Any public statement about discussions or decisions by the group must be agreed by the group and made through an agreed spokesperson. This also applies to researchers, council staff and others who attend the meetings in support of the HBBS.

9. Councillor and Council Staff Involvement

Three HBRC Councillors and an officer from each territorial authority have been appointed to the BSSG. While these Councillors and officers have particular statutory and non-statutory responsibilities outside this process, within the BSSG they have the same rights and responsibilities as all other members. In addition to bringing their particular knowledge and perspectives, these Councillors and officers will represent the interests of the wider Hawke’s Bay community.

The HBRC Councillors are also members of the Regional Planning Committee which comprises all Councillors (9) and representation of eight of the nine Treaty Claimant Groups in Hawke’s Bay. This Committee provides the co-governance structure to recognise mana whenua’s kaitiaki role in managing the natural resources of the Hawke’s Bay rohe. This Committee is tasked with making resource management policy recommendations to the Council.

These Councillors and officers accept their mandate to support any consensus decision reached by the BSSG but recognise that they cannot speak on behalf of the Treaty Claimant Group representatives of the Regional Planning Committee, or in the case of officers cannot commit their Councils to any consensus without a formal resolution from their elected members.

Regional Council staff including the Group Manager Resource Management (GM RM or a delegated authority) will facilitate the Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Strategy. Other regional council support will be provided through the GM RM including financial advice, media assistance, engineering, technical, planning and regulatory advice.

10. Role of Facilitator

Meetings of the BSSG will be led by an independent facilitator, who will:

· Ensure a fair and equitable group process

· Foster an atmosphere of respect, open-mindedness and group learning

· Design an enjoyable and productive process to enable the group to achieve its task

· Facilitate input from all members of the group, so that every voice is heard

· Provide guidance on collaborative deliberation techniques, including constructive ways to voice disagreements and negotiate potential conflicts.

11. Draft Meeting Schedule for BSSG

HBRC has committed to delivering a draft Biodiversity Strategy by December 2013. However, the timeframe will require flexibility to ensure that all relevant information has been considered for the development of a robust and enduring strategy. The function of the BSSG will be reviewed in December 2013.

Following is the schedule for meetings of the BSSG. It is intended that the meetings will follow this schedule but it may be necessary to vary as needs arise.

· Meeting 1: 5 February 2013

· Meeting 2: June 2013

· Meeting 3: September 2013

· Meeting 4: January 2014

· Meeting 5: May 2014

· Meeting 6: August 2014 (final meeting)

Contact:

Campbell Leckie, Land Services Manager, HBRC ph: 833 8099 0272147436 email: campbell@hbrc.govt.nz

Meeting Date	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Status/Comment
15 Aug	7	Biodiversity Strategy	Iain M	Oct	Update at 20 February 2013 meeting.
17 Oct	5	Blue Flag, European Standard	Iain M	Dec 12	Update at 20 February 2013 meeting.
5 Dec	8	Makara Dam – · Provide Councillors Any survey reports · Arrange Visit to Dam Site	Mike A	Jan 13	Paper provided at 20 February 2013 Meeting.

1 View	Napier Inner Harbour
2 View	Environmental assessment of Intertidal reefs at Kairakau
3 View	Puhokio Stream
4 View	Soft Sediment Ecological Monitoring

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.