Source: http://hawkesbay.infocouncil.biz/Open/2019/08/RPC_14082019_AGN_AT.HTM
Timestamp: 2020-01-22 16:54:06
Document Index: 472986722

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 2']

Agenda of Regional Planning Committee - 14 August 2019
3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Planning Committee meeting held on 3 July 2019
6. Proposed TANK Plan Change 9 – Agree Amendments for Notification 11
7. Decision Making Under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 21
8. Resource Management Policy Project August 2019 Updates 35
9. Statutory Advocacy August 2019 Update 39
10. Discussion of Minor Items of Business Not on the Agenda 43
Followups for August 2019 RPC meeting
That the Regional Planning Committee accepts the following “Minor Items of Business Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 10.
Subject: Proposed TANK Plan Change 9 – Agree Amendments for Notification
1. This item seeks the Committee’s agreement to the content of the Draft TANK Plan Change version 9.2 so as to provide staff direction for preparing a Proposed Plan Change 9. This will enable the Committee to make decisions about notification of the Plan Change at their meeting on 18 September 2019.
3. The Committee did not make any decisions and instead directed a sub-group of RPC members to consider and make recommendations on the issues identified by RPC tangata whenua representatives as still outstanding.
4. The RPC sub-group and advisors met twice (25 July and 1 August) and this report accounts for the findings of the sub-group, including recommendations for further amendments.
5. This item also encompasses all additions and amendments to Version 9 of the Plan as reported on at the 3 July meeting but for which a decision is still to be made. These amendments are provided still as tracked changes in Version 9.2 in Attachment 1. The supporting section 32 report for these changes is attachment 4.
6. The topics described in more detail in this report as a result of directions by the RPC are as follows.
6.1. Heretaunga Plain’s groundwater allocation limit
6.2. Policy direction for flow maintenance provisions
6.3. Assessment of TANK Plan Change in relation to Outstanding Waterbodies PC7.
Allocation Limits for the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer
7. The RPC considered alternatives to the allocation limit included in PC9.1 for the Heretaunga Plains at their meeting on the 3rd July. The discussion arose in relation to concerns about the potential effectiveness of the stream flow maintenance scheme that has been included to manage effects groundwater abstraction on stream flow and options for further reducing groundwater abstraction to address that concern.
8. Members of the RPC also expressed a view that the combined management provisions did not adequately provide for the range of instream values held for the Heretaunga Plains water bodies.
9. The draft plan contains a number of measures in relation to the management of water abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains water bodies. These measures are summarised in Table 1 in Attachment 2.
10. The policy direction includes management of the Heretaunga Plains aquifers as if it was over-allocated as it prevents further allocation and re-allocation of water pending further information about and review of the:
10.1. actual water use
10.2. total allocated amount following review and replacement of all existing water permits
10.3. stream flow information
10.4. degree of success of the proposed stream flow management regime
10.5. effectiveness of other ecosystem improvements, and
10.6. appropriateness of the interim allocation limit in light of this review.
11. One component for water management is the establishment of an allocation limit. The draft includes 90 Mm3 /year as an ‘interim’ allocation limit. It is substantially less than the currently allocated amount of around 140-160 Mm3 /year.
12. The interim 90Mm3 /year limit, in combination with Policies 38 and 45 ensures that no new water can be allocated until the review is undertaken, even if water becomes available within allocation limits (a minor exception is currently provided for re-allocation to urban or community use but see further discussion below about Policy 45).
13. Although not expressed as such, the policies provide for a ‘sinking lid’ approach to water allocation until a review occurs following implementation of this plan. This is made more apparent by suggested amendments listed in Table 1.
14. The management approach in the draft plan includes offsetting the stream depletion effects by stream flow maintenance pumping. It enables water users to avoid a cease take restriction if water is pumped into streams to offset their depletion effect when flows fall below the specified trigger. In one part of the Plains (the Paritua/Karewarewa area), the lack of certainty about groundwater and surface water connections and management opportunities is reflected in specific policy direction for further investigation and data collection.
15. The draft Plan envisages that not all adverse effects will be avoided, but that the management solutions included in the plan will remedy or offset adverse effects on ecosystems and instream values while still providing for the economic and social values of the abstracted water.
16. Tangata whenua sought further reductions in water allocation and use than were indicated by the modelling based on the 2012-13 year. Attachment 2 provides modelling information about the extent to which water use would need to be reduced in order to significantly reduce stream depletion.
17. The terminology of ‘interim’ is creating some confusion about the nature and role of this allocation limit. The limit applies for the life of the plan and guides decision making in respect of new applications for water abstraction. The 90 M m3/year reflects modelled use during the 2012-13 year. New permits issued subject to this plan will only be provided where there is an existing permit due for expiry and each permit will be subject to an actual and reasonable assessment of water use that results in a defined annual or seasonal amount. For irrigators, this is based not only on use in the ten years up to 2017, it is also now subject to specified reliability of supply, modelled crop water demand and efficiency standards. Industrial and commercial water abstraction will also be subject to this actual and reasonable assessment including demonstration of efficient water use. An exception for actual and reasonable is provided for urban water supply who must meet demands of urban growth through savings made in existing networks. This is further discussed in attachment 2.
18. The allocation limit is therefore interim because:
18.1. there is some uncertainty about the current levels of water allocation and water use
18.2. it is not known whether the interim limit in combination with all the other management measures will adequately address adverse stream depletion effects,
18.3. the result of the new allocation regime following the expiry and review of existing consents is not yet known
18.4. it is unknown what, if any, measures would be needed to reduce allocation further to that, or some other limit, and what the associated costs of further reduction might be
18.5. if further reductions in water use are required, the distribution of costs across existing consent holders still needs to be determined.
19. Other plan provisions will also impact on how the sustainable limit is to be more definitively determined upon review. In particular, the success of the stream flow maintenance and habitat enhancement schemes will be assessed in relation to their effectiveness in meeting ecosystem health and water quality objectives. This scheme aims to offset the stream depletion effects of groundwater abstraction on the lowland streams and improve ecosystem health and riparian land management.
20. It was previously suggested that ‘interim’ be deleted because review Policy 39 already indicates it is subject to review. However, stronger direction about the interim nature of the plan provisions was sought by tangata whenua. This would better reflect their concerns about the effectiveness of the stream flow maintenance scheme in adequately protecting ecosystem health in the lowland streams and its role in the longer term. As a result of their concerns, it is suggested that use of the term ‘interim’ is helpful although a further option to delete reference to a specific allocation limit is also included for consideration.
21. The protection of spring flow and lowland stream ecosystems is of particular concern to tangata whenua and they note a range of uncertainties and issues with the scheme and in relation to the modelled management scenarios.
22. The lack of certainty that the Plan provisions will actually improve current poor state of some lowland tributaries remains a concern for tangata whenua. For example, it is known that not all streams affected by depletion can be managed in this way. For some, losses to groundwater will exceed any flow maintenance pumping (such as for the Karewarewa). In other circumstances, small tributary waterways may be too far from a cost effective pumping scheme solution.
23. The required detail for each scheme cannot be provided for at a Plan level as each scheme will depend on a range of local and site specific issues including identifying relevant water permits, abstraction and pumping options, and any other measures that a water user collective might develop to ensure stream flows are maintained, such as by rostering or changing points of take. Opportunities and constraints for stream flow maintenance solutions will need to be addressed in more detail through subsequent resource consent processes.
24. RPC direction at the July 3 meeting, sought consideration of several additional options to reduce overall allocation of groundwater:
24.1. Status quo (as per draft PC9.1)
24.2. Reduce the allocation limit from 90 Mm3 /year to 80 Mm3 /year in policy and rules. Reductions in water allocation and use to be achieved through new allocation regime
24.3. 2.a Ensure any new takes above the allocation limit are prohibited, rather than non-complying
24.4. Reduce the actual and reasonable amount allocated through consents by a further 10% (at 1% further reduction per year).
25. The costs and benefits of these options are described in more detail in Attachment 2. The attachment also provides more information about the modelling that was carried out, including modelled actual and reasonable water use.
26. In considering these options a number of other solutions were explored by the RPC sub-group.
27. The RPC sub-group developed a number of amendments to the relevant policies to better reflect the policy intent and the interim nature of some of the management solutions. A further option that considers the merits of not having a defined allocation limit has been added since then as option 5b. The amendments are as described in Table 1 below.
The proposed management provisions should be interim and subject to further review.
Re-introduce reference to interim for allocation limit in Policy 34
While interim, the plan nonetheless provides some certainty for existing investment, while preventing new water use.
The re-allocation of water based on the defined ‘actual and reasonable’ assessment with a “sinking lid” approach to further reduce water use.
Allocation for new water use is avoided through the setting of the limit and non-complying rule and robust policy direction to guide decisions.
Heretaunga Plains will be managed as over-allocated. No more water to be allocated, ‘sinking lid’ approach adopted.
Any water that is unallocated, even if the total allocation is less than the specified limit, would not be re-allocated to any use until a review had been carried out
If there is unallocated water it is left unused to provide additional protection for ecosystem values
Policy 45 deleted. Policy 34 and 47
Either 5a
An interim allocation limit be set at 80Mm3/year.
This reflects the actual and reasonable reallocation regime to provide for existing investment with a focus on further reducing water use overall.
Policy 34, Rule TANK 10, Schedule 6.
Version 9.2 currently includes this provision as general guidance that the aquifer is significantly over-allocated and an indication that significant reductions in allocation are required.
However, the limit could provide a starting point for assessing the plan provisions, and there is a risk that it will be seen as the correct number from which a debate about an alternative proposition will begin, which is not the policy intention. .
Combination of other provisions means limit is provided by restricting any new allocation of water to actual and reasonable and otherwise managing the HPs aquifer as over-allocated until review of plan provisions carried out
The stream flow maintenance and habitat enhancement scheme development and operation would be more clearly provided for and directed by a new Schedule to the Plan.
Policy 36 and new Schedule 12
New Policy 37 and Schedule 12
The clause has been removed. More targeted amendment to Rule TANK 7 and glossary.
The provision is not to allow widespread development but to protect existing authorised commitments to water use. It has very limited application.
28. The RPC sub-group developed a number of amendments to the Heretaunga Plains policies that reflect the direction in Table 1 including item 5a. Amendments are shown in tracked changes in the attached Version 9.2 of the TANK Plan Change (Attachment 1) and include both options 5a and 5b. Option 5b is recommended.
29. The RPC has made decisions on a change to the RPS for outstanding water bodies. An assessment of the TANK plan change for these water bodies is provided below.
30. The outstanding water bodies in the TANK catchments as listed in Proposed Plan Change 7 are:
30.1. Wetlands and lakes
30.2. Kaweka Lakes
30.3. Lake Poukawa and Pekapeka Swamp
30.4. Ngamatea East Swamp
30.5. Ngaruroro River
30.6. Tūtaekurī River
30.7. Taruarau River
30.8. Karamu River
30.9. Heretaunga Aquifer.
31. The Ahuriri Estuary is also identified as an Outstanding Water Body. The TANK Plan Change provides land and water management provisions in respect of freshwater bodies. The Plan must also ensure an integrated approach with respect to inputs to coastal waters and to that extent the TANK Plan Change addresses freshwater inputs to the Ahuriri Estuary and potential impacts on estuary values.
32. Wetlands and lakes are assigned high levels of protection already, both as a result of existing RRMP rules that require no adverse effects as a result of specified activities, and further within the TANK catchments as all wetlands in the TANK catchments are recognised for their high natural, ecological and cultural values. With the exception of Lake Poukawa, the specific wetland/lake water bodies (Listed above) are not however, separately mentioned in PC9.
33. The indigenous species, ecosystem health, recreational activities and particularly natural character, instream values and hydrological functioning values of the mainstem of the Tūtaekurī and Ngaruroro rivers and 4 of their tributaries are protected and improved, particularly in relation to:
33.1. the establishment of freshwater quality objectives
33.2. prohibition on damming
33.3. high flow allocations
33.4. flow triggers for water abstraction at high and low flows
33.5. riparian land management.
34. The improvement to the values provided for by this range of measures will improve the mauri of the water bodies and is therefore intended to also improve cultural and spiritual values.
35. The provisions of the TANK plan go beyond the ‘protection’ of these existing values to improvement of them.
36. The NPSFM Objectives A2 and B4 require the protection of the significant values of OWB’s while water quality is maintained or improved and that water is not over-allocated. The water body values are as they currently are, and these NPSFM objectives do not require improvement beyond the current state to enable a water body to become (more) outstanding.
37. Protection does not necessarily mean no further use or development. Guidance from the Ministry for the Environment states;
37.1. “The NPSFM objectives do not require that every aspect of the water body is fully protected, unless that is necessary to protect the outstanding characteristics. For example a water body may be outstanding because it is the habitat for an endemic freshwater fish, but protecting that fish may be possible even if some water takes and discharges are authorised.”
38. Water quality is subject to new TANK Plan Change objectives for the maintenance or improvement of freshwater quality. Freshwater quality state objectives are specified for a large range of water quality attributes. Attribute states are set in relation to the most critical or sensitive value for that attribute (e.g. E. coli levels represent maintenance and improvement of water quality for swimming, while clarity protects water quality for fish that rely on visual clarity for feeding).
39. The TANK Plan specifies that ‘maintain’ means ensuring the state of the attribute does not decline below its present state if it is already above the specified state, and must be improved if it is below the specified state. It does not allow for movement to a lower quality within an NPSFM band for that attribute.
40. Both the values identified in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan change are therefore being protected and improved.
41. PC9 introduces new allocation limits and flow triggers for both high and low flow abstraction, and includes a new limit for total abstraction from the Heretaunga Plains aquifer.
42. In particular, damming is prohibited to protect the natural character, instream values and hydrological functioning both for the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekurī Rivers and four of their tributaries. This serves to protect values such as jet boating and the braided reaches which are essential habitat for some bird species.
43. New allocation limits are also specified for both the Ngaruroro and Tūtaekurī Rivers at low flows. The allocation limits have been substantially reduced to reduce impacts of abstraction on instream values. Further, the Plan seeks to increase the minimum flow for the Tutaekuri.
44. The TANK Plan Change recognises and manages a wider range of values in relation to water quantity in addition to the instream and intrinsic values and also addresses the needs of people and communities for water.
45. Both the values identified in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan change are therefore being protected and improved.
46. A key factor for improving water quality and ecosystem health is linked to good riparian land management. PC9 focuses on improved riparian management and includes milestones for both stock exclusion and riparian planting to provide shade. These provisions will improve natural character, instream values and water quality and habitat for indigenous species.
47. Both the values identified in the TANK Plan Change and the significant values listed in the OWB plan change are therefore being protected and improved.
48. Table 1 in Attachment 3 shows how TANK refers to the water bodies and what provisions are included to protect identified values. The following section describes how the TANK gives effect to the OWB plan change.
49. The Implementation Plan which has been developed alongside the TANK plan also highlights a number of measures, actions and targets which will support the delivery of the freshwater objectives of the plan
Outstanding Waterbodies Policies Proposed PC7
50. New and amended objective and policy has been introduced into the RPS to identify and direct management of outstanding water bodies as per the direction of the NPSFM.
51. The RPS objectives requires protection of outstanding and significant values and includes several policies in relation to the preparation of regional plans and the consideration of resource consents.
52. Table 2 in Attachment 3 provides an assessment of the specific new policies introduced by PC7 in relation to the provisions of the TANK plan Change. The overall assessment is that the TANK Plan Change does give effect to the RPS provisions for outstanding water bodies in the TANK catchments. However a couple of amendments are suggested to ensure the appropriate connections are made.
53. Objective 2; Amend clause (e) to read;
54. Objective 15
55. It is recommended that suggested amendments reported in respect of the 3 July report to the RPC are also incorporated into the Tank Plan Change for notification. A number of additional minor corrections and amendments have also been made to Version 9.1 and are shown as tracked changes in Version 9.2 (Attachment 2).
56. The TANK Plan Change when it is notified will have considerable potential impact on tanagata whenua and the values they hold for water. This report arises in relation to their feedback on the pre-notification draft of the Plan Change and demonstrates that particular regard is being given to the advice received from iwi authorities.
57. The Plan Change contains an objective that any decisions made about land and water use take into account effects of climate change. The plan considers long term impacts of decision making and incorporates the need for developing community resilience by making land use decisions that address multiple objectives and provides for the development of longer term water supply and demand strategies.
58. The Plan Changes delivers on several of the Councils strategic goals especially in relation to sustainable land and water use and efficient infrastructure.
59. The plan preparation process is incorporated in existing council budgets. The implementation of the Plan will have significant impact on council staff and other resources that have yet to be fully assessed.
60. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). In this case, the decision about content is prior to the next step of making a decisions about notification as prescribed by the Resource Management Act and which will be subject to process steps prescribed by Schedule 1 of the RMA. Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the LGA in relation to this item and have concluded:
60.1. The decision about the content of the Proposed Plan Change 9 (TANK) does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset
60.2. The persons affected by this decision are the Hawke’s Bay regional community
60.3. 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 this specific decision about the content of the Proposed Plan Change 9 (TANK) without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.
1.2. Agrees to the amendments described in the following recommendations being incorporated into proposed TANK Plan Change 9:
1.2.1. amendments as at paragraph 29
1.2.2. amendments as at paragraphs 54 and 55
1.2.3. amendments as at paragraph 56.
1.3. Requests that staff prepare a Proposed Plan Change with those amendments as noted in 1.2 above, and provide it to the 18 September 2019 Regional Planning Committee meeting to enable adoption by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on 25 September 2019 for notification.
TANK Draft Plan Change 9 Version 9.2 July 2019 with tracked changes
Modelling impact of actual and reasonable reallocation
Assessment of Outstanding Waterbodies and TANK Plan Changes
Subject: Decision Making Under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act
1. This item provides Regional Planning Committee members with an overview of their obligations as Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA or the Act) decision-makers in the context of reviewing and amending regional plans and the Regional Policy Statement.
2. At the 3 July 2019 meeting RPC members requested that staff provide a report to the 14 August 2019 meeting to assist their understanding of their obligations as RMA decision-makers. In addition to the general principles of decision making, committee members requested a particular focus on:
2.1. an overview of Part 2 of the Act
2.2. further analysis of the weightings given to each part, and how the requirements to “recognise and provide for”, “have particular regard to” and “take into account” in terms of sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act respectively have been interpreted and applied
2.3. weighting to be given to higher order planning documents
2.4. a brief analysis of the matters decision makers must take into consideration, particularly in relation to Māori interests and values, when making plan change decisions under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014
2.5. How these obligations were reflected in the TANK process
3. The attached paper has been authored by HBRC staff and reviewed by Partners at law firm Simpson Grierson.
4. The process under which the TANK Plan Change was prepared sits in an RMA hierarchy under the requirements of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM). The way in which Māori values and interests were to be considered are particularly outlined in Objective D1 and Policy D1 of the NPSFM.
5. The TANK process ensured iwi and hapū were involved throughout the process, making specific provisions for membership of mana whenua. While the process was not always ideal for a range of reasons, the Council responded to concerns as best it was able (as discussed in the 3 July report to the RPC).
6. This included funding additional input by mana whenua consultants into the plan making process as well as additional meetings with mana whenua members of TANK throughout the process to support understanding and enhance opportunities to provide input.
7. TANK members were supported in properly giving effect to the NPSFM in their decision making through measures such as the TANK Terms of Reference and the clear articulation of tangata whenua as more than ‘stakeholders’ in this process.
8. The Council provided additional funding to mana whenua to assist them in clearly identifying their values and corresponding attributes, in the TANK catchments. These reports were considered and accounted for by TANK members in making decisions about water quality and quantity objectives. They also considered iwi management plans and took into account the relevant provisions of those plans.
9. The NPSFM describes the decision making process that was to be followed to determine and make decisions about Māori and community values.
10. The Plan Change contains objectives and policies seeking a higher level of management effort for improving the ecosystem health of the TANK waterbodies which reflect the direction provided in the NPSFM. The TANK members adopted an integrated approach considering connections from the upper catchments to the sea including impacts on estuary values; ki uta ki tai. It did this while considering the matters provided in the NPSFM, particularly those in Policy CA2 (f), which among other things require consideration of:
10.1. the choices between values and the formulation of freshwater objectives and limits
10.2. any implications for resource users, people and communities
10.3. timeframes.
11. The preparation of the Plan Change identified gaps and opportunities in respect of mana whenua values and interests. These gaps particularly related to matauranga Māori and how this enables kaitiakitanga. The gaps are reflected as placeholders in the Plan that are to be filled following further input into and development of the appropriate measures to satisfy these needs. This requires both Council support as well as mana whenua involvement and is included in the Implementation Plan.
12. As noted in the attached paper, the Council is giving effect to the NPSFM through this plan change. Evidence of the extent to which the plan change gives effect to the NPSFM and therefore the purpose of the Act will be reported on in the section 32 report. This report, together with the submissions, and evidence prepared in relation to the plan change assist the decision maker in determining whether, and how, the requirements of the NPSFM and RMA are being met.
13. The RPC has been required to have particular regard to the feedback from iwi on the pre-notification draft. This imposes an obligation on decision makers to give particular weight to the feedback and creates a duty on the decision maker to be on inquiry, in other words passive action is not sufficient. That this duty was properly carried out is reflected in the direction for further input by the sub-group of the Committee along with advisors to further explore resolution of outstanding concerns.
That the Regional Planning Committee receives and considers the “Decision Making Under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act” staff report.
RMA Decision Making and Maori interests and obligations under Part 2 and the NPSFM
Subject: Resource Management Policy Project August 2019 Updates
That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Resource Management Policy Projects August 2019 Updates” staff report.
RMA August 2019 Update
SUBJECT: Statutory Advocacy August 2019 Update
1. To report on proposals forwarded to the Regional Council and assessed by staff acting under delegated authority as part of the Council’s Statutory Advocacy project since 3 July 2019.
That the Regional Planning Committee receives and notes the “Statutory Advocacy August 2019 Update” staff report.
Statutory Advocacy August 2019 Update